Search
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us in Books
Jul 23, 2019
This book has one of the best forewords I've ever seen. Bornstein explains that since 1994, when the book was first published, language has changed a lot, and terms that were used regularly then, like transsexual, are highly offensive now. So she has heavily rewritten the book to change the language, but she goes on to say that language is an always-changing thing, and in five or six years this edition, too, might be offensive in the language used. Then she apologizes for that. My favorite lines are one of the last paragraphs of the foreword:
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
"Now, if anything you read in this book makes you feel bad or wrong or small and weak, then please know that I said something wrong. This book was written many years ago, and the culture I wrote it in is not the culture in which you're reading it. So, if you find anything to be personally insulting, please accept my apology and keep reading with the knowledge that your identity and how you express your gender are correct only when you feel they are correct."
It was a wonderful note to start the book on. I just loved "if you are offended, if this invalidates your identity, then I AM WRONG." Bornstein transitioned in the 80s, and has been an outspoken advocate of queer and trans people most of her life. She is definitely a figure in queer history that more people should read about.
The rest of the book is every bit as good as the foreword. Bornstein absolutely destroys the concept of gender in this book, dissecting it and looking at all the parts and pieces to attempt to figure out why society is so set on the binary system. She more than makes her case that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or. And not just a spectrum between "more male" and "more female" but a colorful kaleidoscope of gender expression and identity. She does not shy away from sensitive topics like surgeries and anatomy. She talks to the reader like she's your favorite outrageous aunt, sitting in the family room gossiping over heavily-spiked tea.
The formatting was occasionally confusing; she has the usual justified text, but then she has left-aligned passages (usually quotes from other people) and right-aligned passages (side-bar like content; I'm unclear if these are notes she made on the original text or what, but it generally clarifies or alters what the main text is talking about.)
I would HIGHLY recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about gender issues. Bornstein has an incredibly entertaining way of writing, and she loves to challenge what we think of as gender.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Mother May I in Books
Apr 15, 2021
A riveting and addictive thriller about the power of motherhood
Bree Cabbat wakes up in the middle night, convinced a witch was peering into her bedroom window. Surely it was just a dream, she thinks, trying to get over the bad feeling the dream leaves behind. But the next day she sees the witch again--a haggard old woman--at the private school her daughters attend. Minutes later, Bree's infant son, Robert, vanishes, stolen from his car seat while she watches her oldest daughter rehearse. There's a note left behind, and Bree is told she cannot go to the police or fail to the follow instructions whatsoever. A woman contacts Bree, and Bree learns the old woman is a mother herself. She has a task for Bree; Bree agrees to do it, for she would do anything to get her son back. But completing that request sets off a series of events that Bree could have never foreseen, unleashing buried secrets and disastrous consequences. And in the end, it comes down to this: how far will two mothers go to protect their children?
"I felt more than I thought, Something bad is coming for us."
Wow, MOTHER MAY I was an excellent thriller! I was sucked in from the beginning, and this riveting page-turner never let me go. It was surprisingly captivating and so suspenseful--Bree's son Robert is taken nearly immediately, and the rest of the book revolves around her frantically trying to get him back. As she does, she learns more about the woman who stole him. The relationship the two form over the phone is fascinating. Bree is one tough cookie, as is her friend from college, Marshall, a PI at her husband's law firm.
"If you ever want to see your baby again, GO HOME"
Bree was once a poor kid, raised by a fearful mother in rural Georgia, but she's now a wealthy wife and mother, having married an attorney with family money and connections. She's worked hard to push off her mom's fears and wariness and feels like that her picture perfect life has proved her right. But with Robert's kidnapping, she starts to wonder if her mom was justified all along. The novel deftly explores the theme of class. It offers some wonderful messages on the power of motherhood--no matter how wealthy you may be. It certainly makes you think: what would you do in Bree's situation? And the old woman's?
Perhaps not everything in this tale is plausible, but I could have cared less. I was here for all of it! It was incredibly suspenseful and twisty, with information oozing out and surprising you at every turn. I truly couldn't put it down. This is definitely a winning thriller in my book! 4.5 stars.
"I felt more than I thought, Something bad is coming for us."
Wow, MOTHER MAY I was an excellent thriller! I was sucked in from the beginning, and this riveting page-turner never let me go. It was surprisingly captivating and so suspenseful--Bree's son Robert is taken nearly immediately, and the rest of the book revolves around her frantically trying to get him back. As she does, she learns more about the woman who stole him. The relationship the two form over the phone is fascinating. Bree is one tough cookie, as is her friend from college, Marshall, a PI at her husband's law firm.
"If you ever want to see your baby again, GO HOME"
Bree was once a poor kid, raised by a fearful mother in rural Georgia, but she's now a wealthy wife and mother, having married an attorney with family money and connections. She's worked hard to push off her mom's fears and wariness and feels like that her picture perfect life has proved her right. But with Robert's kidnapping, she starts to wonder if her mom was justified all along. The novel deftly explores the theme of class. It offers some wonderful messages on the power of motherhood--no matter how wealthy you may be. It certainly makes you think: what would you do in Bree's situation? And the old woman's?
Perhaps not everything in this tale is plausible, but I could have cared less. I was here for all of it! It was incredibly suspenseful and twisty, with information oozing out and surprising you at every turn. I truly couldn't put it down. This is definitely a winning thriller in my book! 4.5 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Maidens in Books
Jun 24, 2021
A lackluster and dull thriller
Mariana Andros is a group therapist and Cambridge University graduate. She is mourning her late husband, Sebastian, when their niece, Zoe, calls, upset because a friend at Cambridge has been murdered. Mariana and Sebastian raised Zoe as a surrogate daughter, so Mariana heads to Cambridge and St. Christopher's College to be there for her. There, Mariana feels she can help her friend and fellow therapist, Julian Ashcroft, in looking into the murder. Mariana is convinced that Greek tragedy professor Edward Fosca is responsible. He is followed around by a group of female students, deemed The Maidens, who seem obsessed with Fosca and his teachings. When another girl, a Maiden, is found dead, Mariana vows she will do anything to stop him.
"Death was no stranger to Mariana; it had been her traveling companion since she was a child--keeping close behind her, hovering just over her shoulder. She sometimes felt she had been cursed, as if by some malevolent goddess in a Greek myth, to lose everyone she ever loved."
Unpopular opinion time... this book did not work for me. I did not find it engaging nor interesting. I had to force myself to keep reading, as I did not care for any of the characters, including Mariana and Zoe. Mariana is fixated on Edward Fosca from the beginning and seems convinced she should insert herself in a rather serious murder investigation despite not seeming one bit qualified. I'm not sure how her group therapist qualifications lend her any credentials and she lies constantly, much to the annoyance (justified) and detriment of the police. There are basically no sympathetic characters, and there seems to be no reason to care about the murdered women, as we're given no background on them. Some characters (e.g., Julian) seem inserted for no reason whatsoever.
There is a lot of Greek mythology tucked into the story and perhaps I was just over it, as I've read several books revolving around Greek myths lately. It was a lot, though, and sometimes did not seem relevant to our story.
This thriller is certainly atmospheric, with Cambridge playing a strong role in the setting. You definitely feel a part of the academic setting, and I learned a lot about the university while reading. It's dark and somewhat foreboding, but since I was not fully invested in the story, I could only feel so tense. There are some twists, but the big twist came too late and seemed too preposterous to be truly exciting. The author throws in so many red herrings that you find yourself almost rolling your eyes.
Still, this is a very popular thriller for many readers, so chances are it may work for you. For me, it just didn't hold my interest or seem all that, well, thrilling. 2 stars.
"Death was no stranger to Mariana; it had been her traveling companion since she was a child--keeping close behind her, hovering just over her shoulder. She sometimes felt she had been cursed, as if by some malevolent goddess in a Greek myth, to lose everyone she ever loved."
Unpopular opinion time... this book did not work for me. I did not find it engaging nor interesting. I had to force myself to keep reading, as I did not care for any of the characters, including Mariana and Zoe. Mariana is fixated on Edward Fosca from the beginning and seems convinced she should insert herself in a rather serious murder investigation despite not seeming one bit qualified. I'm not sure how her group therapist qualifications lend her any credentials and she lies constantly, much to the annoyance (justified) and detriment of the police. There are basically no sympathetic characters, and there seems to be no reason to care about the murdered women, as we're given no background on them. Some characters (e.g., Julian) seem inserted for no reason whatsoever.
There is a lot of Greek mythology tucked into the story and perhaps I was just over it, as I've read several books revolving around Greek myths lately. It was a lot, though, and sometimes did not seem relevant to our story.
This thriller is certainly atmospheric, with Cambridge playing a strong role in the setting. You definitely feel a part of the academic setting, and I learned a lot about the university while reading. It's dark and somewhat foreboding, but since I was not fully invested in the story, I could only feel so tense. There are some twists, but the big twist came too late and seemed too preposterous to be truly exciting. The author throws in so many red herrings that you find yourself almost rolling your eyes.
Still, this is a very popular thriller for many readers, so chances are it may work for you. For me, it just didn't hold my interest or seem all that, well, thrilling. 2 stars.
Rosalind: DNA's Invisible Woman
Book
Rosalind: DNA’s Invisible Woman tells the true story of the woman who discovered the structure of...
Historical Fiction Narrative Non Fiction
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Battle in Seattle (2008) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Lefty cold
Contains spoilers, click to show
I caught this on the TV and was intrigued by the opening credits, always being one to be interested in real events and certainly ones in a recent political context. I admit that I was unaware of these events, but as the plot played out it left me feeling somewhat cold, always waiting for the hook that never came.
This was basically a docudrama which melded the real and the reenactment together to create an at times frightening and tense view of the riots. Though this could have been any riot, over any subject, which was kind of the point. I feel that this could easily have been a film focusing on the Poll Tax riots of 1990 and have lost nothing.
I feel that this needed to be more, in every area. More Seattle Riots, and I mean in a way that singled them out as such, and not just any riot. More character drama, with barely scratched the surface at most and more political. This attacks the WTO with the lowest common denominator, playing the emotional and reactionary left wing card, rather than a fully rounded balanced argument.
I have no doubt that the World Trade Organisation is evil, as are most capital institutions, but there was little to convict them here, except the strong implications that they are against free speech.
This was a film which was fair to it's characters; The riot cop just doing his job, the peaceful protesters, the anarchists and the forlorn Mayer. But there was a lack of a strong villain, as, as I've said, the WTO wasn't sufficiently justified.
Also, its historical integrity has to be questioned. Simply put, are any of the characters portrait here real? The protesters are fictional, as I understand, but the Mayer? The reporter? It's not clear and based on their actions within the film, I would really like to know.
*** SPOILER *** But finally, the most disturbing and probably the best, most compelling part of this film to me would be the what happens to Charlize Theron's character, a pregnant woman and wife of Woody Harleson's riot cop. As she is trying in vain to make her way home amidst the chaos of rioters clashing with police and in the confusion is treated as a rioter and is hit in the stomach with a baton. The result I'll leave in your imagination...
This was best moment in the film were the true horror of these clashes become prevalent as the moral lines are crossed and order breaks down.
************** In summation, this was worth a watch but will offer little in the way of clarification as to the motives of the events of that November, but maybe there are no more. Maybe it was a riot which stemmed from a protest against the capitalist machine. If you have strong lefty views then this is the film for you, if not, have a look but I doubt that you'll be blown away.
This was basically a docudrama which melded the real and the reenactment together to create an at times frightening and tense view of the riots. Though this could have been any riot, over any subject, which was kind of the point. I feel that this could easily have been a film focusing on the Poll Tax riots of 1990 and have lost nothing.
I feel that this needed to be more, in every area. More Seattle Riots, and I mean in a way that singled them out as such, and not just any riot. More character drama, with barely scratched the surface at most and more political. This attacks the WTO with the lowest common denominator, playing the emotional and reactionary left wing card, rather than a fully rounded balanced argument.
I have no doubt that the World Trade Organisation is evil, as are most capital institutions, but there was little to convict them here, except the strong implications that they are against free speech.
This was a film which was fair to it's characters; The riot cop just doing his job, the peaceful protesters, the anarchists and the forlorn Mayer. But there was a lack of a strong villain, as, as I've said, the WTO wasn't sufficiently justified.
Also, its historical integrity has to be questioned. Simply put, are any of the characters portrait here real? The protesters are fictional, as I understand, but the Mayer? The reporter? It's not clear and based on their actions within the film, I would really like to know.
*** SPOILER *** But finally, the most disturbing and probably the best, most compelling part of this film to me would be the what happens to Charlize Theron's character, a pregnant woman and wife of Woody Harleson's riot cop. As she is trying in vain to make her way home amidst the chaos of rioters clashing with police and in the confusion is treated as a rioter and is hit in the stomach with a baton. The result I'll leave in your imagination...
This was best moment in the film were the true horror of these clashes become prevalent as the moral lines are crossed and order breaks down.
************** In summation, this was worth a watch but will offer little in the way of clarification as to the motives of the events of that November, but maybe there are no more. Maybe it was a riot which stemmed from a protest against the capitalist machine. If you have strong lefty views then this is the film for you, if not, have a look but I doubt that you'll be blown away.
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Handmaid's Tale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum"
Strange book.
I really wanted to like it and I kinda do.
Its way too biblical for me. With all these references to different Books connected with the Bible - the Bible stories are not really my thing. Yeah, I know that this is the point - the Religious takes over the world. But the author brings it too far than needed.
The story doesn’t have any logical order. It sounds like a diary of somebody who lost their common sense. All this illogical sentences. Like a flashes of memory in between the current situation. Lack of direct speech - there is no distinction between the narrator and the different characters. It’s so senseless in some points that I have to go back and to read the past couple of pages all over again so I can get the line out.
It's is situated in not-so-far future and it’s told by a woman with no name. All women are named after the family who owns them. In this case our narrator is OfFred - owned by a commander Fred’s family. The new government, that had risen, is proclaiming no rights for the women. Their only purpose is to give birth to a healthy babies. They don’t need money, jobs, books, pens or other things that we are taking for granted in our lives. They don’t need them to deliver babies, so they don’t need them at all.
"Tell, rather than write, because I have nothing to write with and writing is in any case forbidden.
But if it's a story, even in my head.
I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself. There's always someone else.
Even when there is no one."
The Republic of Gilead, as I said, uses religion to control their lives. Every atrocity they do is justified by the Bible. The Bible has all the answers.
The story line is going around OfFred’s inner fights, her struggle to make the right choices, her dreams to be free again and to be with her child and her husband again. Along with her thoughts she shows us what is like to be a Handmaid. Her daily routine, the Rituals and all these small things that distract her from the reality.
"You can only be jealous of someone who has something you think you ought to have yourself"
Personaly, I don’t like the book that much. It’s senseless and not that easy to read. Not because of the topic, but the way it’s written. The shortage of direct speech took away the movement of the book. I know it should look like a diary, but even in the diaries, the difference between the narrator and others is shown in proper way. Probably I will need a second read to fully understand it. But for now the book left a big mess in my head.
"A man is just a woman's strategy for making other women."
Strange book.
I really wanted to like it and I kinda do.
Its way too biblical for me. With all these references to different Books connected with the Bible - the Bible stories are not really my thing. Yeah, I know that this is the point - the Religious takes over the world. But the author brings it too far than needed.
The story doesn’t have any logical order. It sounds like a diary of somebody who lost their common sense. All this illogical sentences. Like a flashes of memory in between the current situation. Lack of direct speech - there is no distinction between the narrator and the different characters. It’s so senseless in some points that I have to go back and to read the past couple of pages all over again so I can get the line out.
It's is situated in not-so-far future and it’s told by a woman with no name. All women are named after the family who owns them. In this case our narrator is OfFred - owned by a commander Fred’s family. The new government, that had risen, is proclaiming no rights for the women. Their only purpose is to give birth to a healthy babies. They don’t need money, jobs, books, pens or other things that we are taking for granted in our lives. They don’t need them to deliver babies, so they don’t need them at all.
"Tell, rather than write, because I have nothing to write with and writing is in any case forbidden.
But if it's a story, even in my head.
I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself. There's always someone else.
Even when there is no one."
The Republic of Gilead, as I said, uses religion to control their lives. Every atrocity they do is justified by the Bible. The Bible has all the answers.
The story line is going around OfFred’s inner fights, her struggle to make the right choices, her dreams to be free again and to be with her child and her husband again. Along with her thoughts she shows us what is like to be a Handmaid. Her daily routine, the Rituals and all these small things that distract her from the reality.
"You can only be jealous of someone who has something you think you ought to have yourself"
Personaly, I don’t like the book that much. It’s senseless and not that easy to read. Not because of the topic, but the way it’s written. The shortage of direct speech took away the movement of the book. I know it should look like a diary, but even in the diaries, the difference between the narrator and others is shown in proper way. Probably I will need a second read to fully understand it. But for now the book left a big mess in my head.
"A man is just a woman's strategy for making other women."
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Tom (Liam Neeson) is a long-time bank robber eager to put his past behind him in the new film “Honest Thief”. A circumstance forced Tom to decide to strike back at the establishment following a career in ordinance in the military and has found he has a real talent for blowing safes and making away with millions of dollars over several years.
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Aug 3, 2019)
WBs second entry into the DCEU is a messy misstep.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's the big one that comic fans have been waiting decades to see come to life on the big screen, the one that was infamously teased in I Am Legend, the one that was going to match The Dark Knight Returns, and it's just oh so dissapointing.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.