Search
Search results
Sew Magazine – your complete guide to sewing, stitching and embroidery
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
6.0
Rate It
App
If you love to stitch, or want to learn, then Sew is the magazine for you! Jam-packed full of...
HERE WeGo - City navigation
Navigation and Travel
App
HERE WeGo is a free app that makes city navigation effortless. With detailed routes, turn-by-turn...
GPS-Tracks for iPhone
Navigation and Travel
App
Multimedia-Tour guide with Topo maps for the european alpine region. GPS-Tracks for iPhone is...
Splintered (Splintered, #1)
7.9
Rate It
Book
This stunning debut captures the grotesque madness of a mystical under-land, as well as a girl’s...
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Sunsett Song in Books
May 14, 2017
there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ I
Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon, published in 1932 became the ‘cream of the crop’ in a poll organised by The Scottish Book Trust last year. Not only was it voted as Scotland’s favourite novel, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described it as ‘timeless’ in an interview with the BBC, ‘ it said something about the history of the country I grew up in and it resonated with me very strongly as a young Scottish woman.’ I have to say that I am in agreement with the First Minister. Sunset Song is a beautifully written aesthetic novel that follows the life and internal conflict of the protagonist Chris Guthrie. By presenting Chris as a kind of cultural double, Gibbon is showing the reader the problems that result in Chris’s separation from the community and her parents conflicting interests regarding her upbringing. Chris’ father, hoping to enhance his daughter’s natural intelligence, is aware of the negative impact that the community might have on her progression, ‘Stick to your lessons and let’s see you make a name for yourself, you’ve no time for friends.’ John Guthrie, a progressive man, regards Chris’s peers as ‘servant queans.’ Whilst this may read as a cultural attack on the lower classes, John Guthrie, is simply reacting to his own working class conditions as a farmer. His motivation is to raise Chris out of the environment that he himself has struggled in and to give her better opportunities. Chris refers to her intelligent self as ‘English’ and identifies a cultural otherness between herself and those of her community. Chris’ mother Jean, on the other hand, has a view of the world that is from a much older time. Before marriage she was a free spirit, ‘there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ It was Gibbon’s intention to create a heteroglossic view of education between Chris’ parents in order to create a protagonist whose future is a conflict between progression and an older unstructured way of life. It is through Chris’s thoughts, however, that her true self can be found. Her English self forms an escape, a place that is simpler, refined and an improvement on how she perceives Scottish culture as a result of her class, ‘the furrows went criss and cross, you wanted this and you wanted that, books and the fineness of them no more than empty gabble sometimes, and then sharn and the snapping that sickened you and drove you back to books.’ It is clear that Gibbon wanted to show the reader that Scottish culture does evaporate with progression. Culture lives in all of us, in the people, the land and in the struggles that we have faced and will face in the future. Chris Guthrie is the perfect example of hope, for a future which is rich in learning while still embracing her Scottish roots, I guess a future we can all identify with.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Beasts Made of Night in Books
Apr 19, 2018
Terrible characters (3 more)
Lack of explanation of terms
Stupid cliffhanger
Confusing geography
So this Nigerian-influenced fantasy made enough of a splash when it was released in October that I JUST got it in my hands from the library. That long wait....was not actually justified, sadly. The cover is GORGEOUS and the concept is really, really cool - the execution is lacking. I can tell that the author had the world pretty fleshed out in his mind, from the geography to the vocabulary - but he didn't actually pass that knowledge on to the reader. Kos is a walled city, but I'm not sure whether the Palace is within the walls or not? In one scene our protagonist LEAPS out of the castle and runs back the city - but in another scene he mentions that looking out the castle wall, Kos fits behind his fingernail. Kos is made up of several neighborhood plus a market - it's not small. So either his fingernail is HUGE or Kos is a pretty decent distance away. But it's written as if it only takes him about ten minutes to run there? Not to mention that he cracked a rib in the room that he leaped from (which is never mentioned again).
Oh and he winds up landing in an ivy maze out of nowhere - he couldn't see it from the palace? Let's see....the King regularly bombards neighborhoods with catapults in what's called a "baptism" but the people haven't revolted against this, for some reason. They talk about something called a "kanselo" but never define it. I -think- it's like an organized group or coalition, but I'm really not entirely sure.
The male protagonist treats every woman his age as a potential love interest, debating whether to give them his heart-stone, or whether people will think he's already given one girl or another his heart-stone - but never stops to ask if the girls are interested in HIM that way. Because of COURSE they would be, right? He's the Sky-Fist! The Lightbringer! The one whose tattoos never fade! (Eating sin-beasts causes a black tattoo to appear on your skin - on most sin-eaters these fade eventually.) Also he's just DUMB. He recalls that the sin-eater who ate his mother's sin had a certain tattoo, and when he runs across her years later, it takes him three or four encounters before realizing it's the same sin-eater. (The tattoo is a spider. Covering her FACE. It hasn't faded.) He makes stupid decisions - after nightmares of one love-interest being attacked by sin-beasts, he LEAVES HER SURROUNDED BY THEM to go run out into the city. He has at least FIVE love interests in this book. And only ONE of them seems interested in him in return.
I really wanted to like this book. The concept of sin-eating is great. But the main character and all the one-dimensional characters that surrounded him, along with the confusing geography, just turned me off. And I'm not even getting into the "ending." Yeah. Definitely throwing quotes on that because that was not an ending. The book just stops.
Skip this. It was a terrible book wrapped in a deceptively pretty package.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Oh and he winds up landing in an ivy maze out of nowhere - he couldn't see it from the palace? Let's see....the King regularly bombards neighborhoods with catapults in what's called a "baptism" but the people haven't revolted against this, for some reason. They talk about something called a "kanselo" but never define it. I -think- it's like an organized group or coalition, but I'm really not entirely sure.
The male protagonist treats every woman his age as a potential love interest, debating whether to give them his heart-stone, or whether people will think he's already given one girl or another his heart-stone - but never stops to ask if the girls are interested in HIM that way. Because of COURSE they would be, right? He's the Sky-Fist! The Lightbringer! The one whose tattoos never fade! (Eating sin-beasts causes a black tattoo to appear on your skin - on most sin-eaters these fade eventually.) Also he's just DUMB. He recalls that the sin-eater who ate his mother's sin had a certain tattoo, and when he runs across her years later, it takes him three or four encounters before realizing it's the same sin-eater. (The tattoo is a spider. Covering her FACE. It hasn't faded.) He makes stupid decisions - after nightmares of one love-interest being attacked by sin-beasts, he LEAVES HER SURROUNDED BY THEM to go run out into the city. He has at least FIVE love interests in this book. And only ONE of them seems interested in him in return.
I really wanted to like this book. The concept of sin-eating is great. But the main character and all the one-dimensional characters that surrounded him, along with the confusing geography, just turned me off. And I'm not even getting into the "ending." Yeah. Definitely throwing quotes on that because that was not an ending. The book just stops.
Skip this. It was a terrible book wrapped in a deceptively pretty package.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
Very Fun RomCom
When a fired journalist finds himself writing speeches for the Secretary of State, he also finds himself in over his head when he quickly falls for her. Anyone that’s read even a tenth of my reviews know how much I love genre films that try and bend said genre and do things differently, albeit slightly. It’s for that reason that I fell in love with Long Shot. I’d be surprised if you didn’t as well.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Thaw (Seasons of Love, #2) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Abby is an introverted librarian happily living a regular life in Brooklyn. But things change when she attends a charity gala with a friend and meets Gabrielle, a famous actress and model. The two connect on the dance floor, and Abby is immediately taken by this lovely woman known in modeling circles as the Ice Queen. And while she can see how Gabrielle has earned this nickname, she also senses a softer side to her. Gabrielle asks Abby on a date, and the two begin to get to know each other, discovering they have a lot of similar interests. But even though Gabrielle seems to let her guard down around Abby, she also has problems opening up about her past. Meanwhile, while Abby finds Gabrielle fascinating, she's worried what will happen to their relationship when she admits she's asexual. She's also dealing with issues in her own personal life related to her library position. Can these two women overcome a variety of obstacles to find love?
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Emma Montague is an Englishwoman living in the U.S. She left behind her parents as soon as she could: feeling trapped by her mother's snobbery and outgoing personality, so different from Emma's quiet and introverted self. But life in the high-powered banking world in New York City isn't exactly for Emma either. She finds everyone so false: women who only care about clothes and finding a man, too many nights at bars, and pressure to use dating apps. Her one long-term relationship winds up nowhere, and so Emma finds herself on the move again: this time to the beach town of Westport, CT. She takes a break from banking and finds herself renting a house in this seaside town. Emma quickly finds herself falling for landlord, Dominic, a bartender in Westport. A father to six-year-old Jesse, Dominic seems to be the opposite of Emma in every way. Emma isn't sure that the two could ever really be together, but she can't seem to stop her heart from falling for Dominic. Are they meant to be?
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Ugh, this book. Some of it was enjoyable, and yet so much of it was just so damn frustrating. First of all, the entire thing seemed like it was based on just a mountain of stereotypes and tropes. Emma has built-in stereotypes and preconceived notions about Dominic (a bartender can't be anything like a banker, apparently, or share any of the same interests). Every woman in the banking world is a vapid idiot except Emma. All New Yorkers just want to get married and move to the suburbs. And so on and so on. It gets really old after a while.
Then, the whole different worlds thing: Emma versus Dom style. As a moving forward plot device, it just seemed incredibly forced. I understand that the "we're from two different worlds" idea still exists today, but really? It's that hard to overcome that a woman considers just dropping the only guy who has ever made her happy, because he seems beneath her? It would be different if the book put forth some real reasons that their class differences threatened their relationship, but it really doesn't. It's all half developed and mostly based on Emma's speculation.
That brings me to Emma. I wanted to like Emma. I could see a lot of Emma in myself - a quiet introvert who doesn't take well to people, who needs time to warm up. I understand that. But oh my gosh, she drove me crazy. So wishy washy! So indecisive! So unable to just follow her *own* thoughts and feelings. She drove me insane. It's very hard to fully enjoy a novel where you often want to wring the neck of the main character.
All of that, truly, I could have probably forgiven if Green hadn't taken the plot off the deep end near the end of the novel. I was so irritated and so upset: I went through all of the above for THIS? I won't spoil it, but let's just say I didn't sign up for a Nicholas Sparks novel. Any of the novel's redeeming qualities (a cute cat, a somewhat cute kid, Emma's dad) went out the window.
Overall, I just didn't enjoy this one. Too much of the plot devices irritated me, and then-BOOM-the actual plot drove me over the edge.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Anchor & Hope (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A heart-wrenching portrait of parenthood & sexuality
Deciding to have a baby is a big step in many couples’ lives, but sometimes, things don’t always go according to plan. Carlos Marques-Marcet’s Anchor and Hope follows two lesbian women who, one drunken night, decide to use their friend’s sperm in order to have a child of their own. It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly, but makes for an interesting story nonetheless. Insemination is a viable option that is often considered by those in same-sex relationships, or by those who struggle to conceive. This is the first film I’ve seen that deals with the subject so explicitly.
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/
Throughout the course of the film, we focus heavily on the lives of Eva, Kat and Roger. The quality of acting was very good and believable, meaning it was easy for me to stay invested in their lives as events transpired. They all have very different personality traits that inevitably clash, and it’s not long before jealousy starts to rear its ugly head and tensions rise. Kat and Roger are close and both fluent in Spanish, meaning they’re able to communicate and Eva hasn’t got a clue what they’re saying. She starts feeling left out, which may or may not have driven her to think about the insemination. It’s left up to the audience to figure that one out. It’s clear Eva wants the baby more than Kat does, which is already a huge red flag.
The baby becomes a central part of the narrative, and the character’s lives. Anchor and Hope presents us with different viewpoints, all centred around this new life. It’s incredibly emotional to watch as we witness how three very different characters respond to it. I respected the fact the film doesn’t position itself as for or against any argument, it simply presents them to the audience as valid responses to what’s happening. Had the film gotten too preachy one way or the other, I think I may have found that frustrating. This is a film that leaves a lot up to the audience, and one that can spark interesting discussions.
Despite my interest in the topic and praise for the acting, I didn’t particularly like any of the characters. They’re all frustrating in their own ways and sometimes it felt a little too far-fetched and melodramatic. This weakened the film for me as I didn’t find myself rooting for anyone, and just wished they’d never made that decision in the first place. There’s no warmth for any of the characters, which was a let down. I also felt the story could have been shorter and snappier, as it felt too drawn out in places.
However, it is a very interesting look into insemination and sperm donors, and the script is strong and considered. It would be easy to cause controversy if not dealt with respectfully, but I felt like appropriate research had been done and they remained impartial throughout. The visuals are clean, well shot, and I liked the use of small, intimate locations to tell the story. Eva and Kat live on a houseboat, so that sense of minimalism is present throughout.
I was mostly entertained and enjoyed watching it, so I would recommend this film if it’s a topic that interests you. Overall, it’s an emotionally charged and well-written LGBT+ film and we definitely need more of those.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/08/anchor-and-hope-a-heart-wrenching-portrait-of-parenthood-sexuality/