Search
Search results
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated Batwoman in TV
Dec 3, 2019 (Updated Dec 3, 2019)
This is ok, and fingers crossed đ¤ it'll get better the longer it's part of the Arrowverse. It's definitely entertaining....but some of the acting is downright terrible. I suppose it's the writing as well. Ruby Rose - I adore her face, but she has literally one facial expression and that's it. In the most recent episode, she learns something that's supposed to make her cry, and it's honestly painful watching her try to show the emotion. The best acting so far has come from Rachel Skarsten as I-know-I-should-hate-her-but-I-can't villain Alice.
Also: why does everyone know who Batwoman is? I swear every time I turn around someone else is having an "ah ha!" moment.
Kate Kane's very much in the closet former lover Sophie is probably the most annoying character on the show. Loving the next gen characters of Luke Fox and and Julia Pennyworth, and the actual Batwoman costume is pretty badass.
Also: why does everyone know who Batwoman is? I swear every time I turn around someone else is having an "ah ha!" moment.
Kate Kane's very much in the closet former lover Sophie is probably the most annoying character on the show. Loving the next gen characters of Luke Fox and and Julia Pennyworth, and the actual Batwoman costume is pretty badass.
Nicole Hadley (380 KP) rated Laura Ingalls Is Ruining My Life in Books
Jun 18, 2018
Laura Ingalls Is Ruining My Life by Shelley Tougas is a middle grade novel where we meet Charlotte Lake. Charlotte and her family are constantly moving to new cities for her motherâs passion of wanting to be a published author. Charlotteâs mom wants to write a book about Laura Ingalls, who was inspirational to her as a child. Charlotte is embarrassed by her motherâs obsession and frustrated with constantly having to start a new school and new life. She never feels like she fits in anywhere. She has a twin brother who has chosen to not talk since he feels his voice is not being heard in the moves, and a younger sister who is perfect. Charlotte struggles to make friends and find her niche among so many moves.
The family recently relocated to Walnut Grove, one of the places Laura Ingalls grew up. It houses a Laura Ingalls museum that hosts an essay contest each year. In a spark of brilliance, Charlotte decides to enter the contests and win the grand prize of $500. She knows this money will change her familyâs life and maybe help her mother put down some roots. As the contest deadline nears, Charlotte becomes very ill with the flu and misses over a week of school, and time to create her essay. At the last moment, she furiously scribbles out the line, âLaura Ingalls is ruining my life,â and turns that in as her essay. Her clever teacher reads this and probes Charlotte to write more and dig deeper.
The family rents out the basement of a house owned by Mia and Miguel, who live upstairs with their granddaughter, Julia. Charlotte has moved so many times that she is reluctant to learn the names of her fellow classmates or draw any attention to herself. After she is out sick at the very beginning of school, she starts to notice that her brother has made a lot of friends in her absence. Charlotte, however, is still uncomfortable and even fails a reading test so that she has to spend her lunch time doing remedial work. She hopes to win an essay contest about Wilder because the $500 would be helpful to her family, but Julia wins instead. The two girls start to volunteer at the Wilder museum, and start to become friends. Charlotteâs mother is writing very little, and as the year progresses, starts to slip into a significant depression. Roseâs father remarries, and Rose is devastated that he no longer schedules any of their visits together. When there is vandalism at the museum, Charlotte is blamed, but the real perpetrator is not any of the people who are suspected.
I recommend this book for any fans of pioneer life, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and middle grade readers. I received this book as an ARC from NetGalley via Macmillan Childrenâs Publishing Group and Roaring Brook Press.
The family recently relocated to Walnut Grove, one of the places Laura Ingalls grew up. It houses a Laura Ingalls museum that hosts an essay contest each year. In a spark of brilliance, Charlotte decides to enter the contests and win the grand prize of $500. She knows this money will change her familyâs life and maybe help her mother put down some roots. As the contest deadline nears, Charlotte becomes very ill with the flu and misses over a week of school, and time to create her essay. At the last moment, she furiously scribbles out the line, âLaura Ingalls is ruining my life,â and turns that in as her essay. Her clever teacher reads this and probes Charlotte to write more and dig deeper.
The family rents out the basement of a house owned by Mia and Miguel, who live upstairs with their granddaughter, Julia. Charlotte has moved so many times that she is reluctant to learn the names of her fellow classmates or draw any attention to herself. After she is out sick at the very beginning of school, she starts to notice that her brother has made a lot of friends in her absence. Charlotte, however, is still uncomfortable and even fails a reading test so that she has to spend her lunch time doing remedial work. She hopes to win an essay contest about Wilder because the $500 would be helpful to her family, but Julia wins instead. The two girls start to volunteer at the Wilder museum, and start to become friends. Charlotteâs mother is writing very little, and as the year progresses, starts to slip into a significant depression. Roseâs father remarries, and Rose is devastated that he no longer schedules any of their visits together. When there is vandalism at the museum, Charlotte is blamed, but the real perpetrator is not any of the people who are suspected.
I recommend this book for any fans of pioneer life, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and middle grade readers. I received this book as an ARC from NetGalley via Macmillan Childrenâs Publishing Group and Roaring Brook Press.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
Itâs only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley âcattle marketâ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70âs over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970⌠no streaming⌠no video players⌠not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
âMisbehaviourâ tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Womenâs Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show â one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
âMisbehaviourâ has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). Iâm normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in âWild Roseâ) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their âfixerâ Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that itâs difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
Thereâs no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate â even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hopeâs off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to âshow their rear viewâ to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly âusing their bodiesâ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesnât help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a âverdictâ.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoplesâ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when âblack lives didnât matterâ. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia â itâs not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. Itâs a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But Iâm afraid for me itâs all a bit âmehâ.
If asked âwould you like to watch that again?â⌠I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
âMisbehaviourâ tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Womenâs Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show â one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
âMisbehaviourâ has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). Iâm normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in âWild Roseâ) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their âfixerâ Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that itâs difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
Thereâs no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate â even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hopeâs off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to âshow their rear viewâ to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly âusing their bodiesâ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesnât help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a âverdictâ.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoplesâ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when âblack lives didnât matterâ. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia â itâs not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. Itâs a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But Iâm afraid for me itâs all a bit âmehâ.
If asked âwould you like to watch that again?â⌠I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.