Search
Merissa (11726 KP) rated Green Hills and Daffodils (The Green Hills #1) in Books
Oct 24, 2023 (Updated Oct 24, 2023)
A book involving red and white dragons, set in Wales? Sign me up. Well, I did and what I got was different, very different from what I expected.
GREEN HILLS AND DAFFODILS starts with an American moving to a small village in Wales, wanting to put down roots. Jane is neurodivergent and has zero social filter. This leads to situations where she puts her foot in it. But honestly? I'm not surprised. That little village is a stirring pot of goodness knows what!
The main characters - Rhys, Jane, and Stewart - were all interesting. I did, however, get lost multiple times with just who was married to whom, and when, and who was who's father/mother. Honestly, talk about family saga! And, to be fair, I'm not even sure if it is relevant to the storyline yet!
This was a long book, giving plenty of background information on the characters, and their interactions with each other, being told by multiple perspectives on the same page. I now know more about sheep farming and ewes being in labour than I ever knew before. And once again, I'm not sure just how much was relevant.
There are a lot of stereotypes in here that I wish weren't. Wales is such a beautiful country and I hate to see it made fun of, even in a gentle way. I don't know if it was meant, or if it was a way of showing how Jane would put her foot in it, but still. Too much.
Saying that though, I found myself being hooked by the story. The whole book is slow, slow burn with our main 'love interests' not even meeting for the majority of the book. (It's literally in the epilogue for about two minutes!) I do feel involved in their story though, and want to see where it goes from here.
Definitely not what I expected and not really a romance, this is still a gripping story and recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Oct 24, 2023
GREEN HILLS AND DAFFODILS starts with an American moving to a small village in Wales, wanting to put down roots. Jane is neurodivergent and has zero social filter. This leads to situations where she puts her foot in it. But honestly? I'm not surprised. That little village is a stirring pot of goodness knows what!
The main characters - Rhys, Jane, and Stewart - were all interesting. I did, however, get lost multiple times with just who was married to whom, and when, and who was who's father/mother. Honestly, talk about family saga! And, to be fair, I'm not even sure if it is relevant to the storyline yet!
This was a long book, giving plenty of background information on the characters, and their interactions with each other, being told by multiple perspectives on the same page. I now know more about sheep farming and ewes being in labour than I ever knew before. And once again, I'm not sure just how much was relevant.
There are a lot of stereotypes in here that I wish weren't. Wales is such a beautiful country and I hate to see it made fun of, even in a gentle way. I don't know if it was meant, or if it was a way of showing how Jane would put her foot in it, but still. Too much.
Saying that though, I found myself being hooked by the story. The whole book is slow, slow burn with our main 'love interests' not even meeting for the majority of the book. (It's literally in the epilogue for about two minutes!) I do feel involved in their story though, and want to see where it goes from here.
Definitely not what I expected and not really a romance, this is still a gripping story and recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Oct 24, 2023
Sustainability Planning and Collaboration in Rural Canada: Taking the Next Steps
Lars K. Hallstrom, Mary Beckie, Glen T. Hvenegaard and Karsten Mundel
Book
Rural communities, often the first indicators of economic downturns, play an important role in...
Mining and Communities in Northern Canada: History, Politics, and Memory
Arn Keeling, John Sandlos and Patricia Boulter
Book
For indigenous communities throughout the globe, mining has been a historical forerunner of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Spider-man, starring Tobey Maguire, came out on 14th June 2002. Co-starring Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. My god doesn't every one look young!
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
Top 80 Classic Books - The free collection of the 80 best classics of all the time
Book and Travel
App
This amazing app contains the top 80 classic books, as proposed by one hundred writers from...
Lancelot 'Capability' Brown: The Omnipotent Magician, 1716-1783
Book
Lancelot Brown changed the face of eighteenth-century England, designing country estates and...
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.