Search
Search results
Yoko Ono recommended JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters in Books (curated)
Aamir Khan recommended A Confederacy of Dunces in Books (curated)
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 6, 2017
Raw emotions and fabulous acting from Natalie Portman
This was pretty tragic, the inside story of the wife who has to witness her husband being assassinated in front of her eyes. This was about Jackie Kennedy, and the grief she felt following John F. Kennedy's death. Natalie Portman was once again magnificent, showing the raw emotion and confusion felt being a First Lady in mourning. And while there's not much else to the story, it's all about bereavement which is complex enough.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Serious Sweet: Longlisted for the Man Booker Prize in Books
May 13, 2017
This novel is a work of art, l I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
‘The trouble was, that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
A.L. Kennedy is an award-winning novelist, short story writer, and comedian. Her most recent novel, Serious Sweet, 2016, was long listed for this year’s Man Booker prize. Prior to reading the novel, I read some reviews and was fascinated by their diversity, comments ranging from disappointing to outright marvellous. This told me that I was about to embark on a work of art, after all I would expect nothing less from a Man Booker contender.
The novel is set in the heart of contemporary London and follows its two main characters, John Sigurdsson and Meg Williams through a single day. John is a fickle character, who at 59-year of age, has recently divorced is adulterous wife, and his professional life is hanging in the balance. Working as a senior civil servant in Westminster, he is attempting to uncover some pretty immoral activity. John has a talent for letter writing, this, he finds, is a romantic way to connect to women, whilst otherwise remaining inconspicuous. This is how he meets Meg.
Meg Williams is a 45-year-old bankrupt accountant, now working in an animal shelter because, ‘people who’ve been damaged by people go and work with salvaged animals because the animals have also been damaged by people’ (128). Meg is a victim of sexual abuse from a previous partner, something that we only learn in smatterings throughout the novel. A struggling alcoholic, Meg is on the wagon then off the wagon and blames her more recent fall on Margaret Thatcher, ‘The trouble was that Margaret Thatcher got her drunk.’
While the novel itself can be read as a political satire, and political corruption is plentiful in the narrative, I feel it is simply a back-story. The real story is the unfolding of the human consciousness and the power of the mind. Kennedy shows the reader the power of will through the thoughts of each character, stripping them back to their rawest and purest selves, and showing real courage and hope.
When John and Meg eventually meet at the end of the novel, it is not without some supercharged emotional turmoil. Connecting initially through letter writing, however, allowed the characters to open up their inner thoughts and feelings and gave a platform to be open and honest without the restrictions of reality. This, I believe, is where hope is born in the story.
Watching these two characters evolve was a real delight for me and I feel that Kennedy did the novel justice. You can almost feel each character battle with their own heads while their consciousness’ begins to intertwine. And let us not forget those beautifully written vignettes between chapters. Kennedy has written a wonderful novel, and Serious Sweet, I believe was worthy of its Man Booker place.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thirteen Days (2000) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Verdict: History Lesson
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) in Movies
Dec 4, 2021
Well then, colour me surprised because I didn't absolutely hate this.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
I would rate this 3.5/5 stars.
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!