Search
My rating 2.5
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads. </i>
There is often a preconception that self-published books are not as good as those printed by world famous publishers. Yet, given a chance, there are a few that surprise you. Unfortunately, there are many issues with Laura Foster’s debut novel <i>Crimson</i>. The actual concept has promise of appealing to a range of readers due to falling into a variety of genres: fantasy, science fiction, young adult and paranormal/horror. Where the novel suffers is within the writing style and obvious lack of proof reading.
The storyline concentrates on a homeless young girl whose frightening nightmares have led her to believe she is in grave danger. Dawn Pearson, who the reader is led to believe is only twelve or thirteen years of age, is determined to get as far away from the creature in her dreams as possible. With the help of Mike, a friend she makes on the street, she narrowly escapes being captured by the red-eyed, irascible monster she has named Crimson.
While the pair flee, Dawn and Mike become aware of another terrifying beast, although neither understand why Dawn is being hunted. It soon manifests that Dawn harbours an ethereal power, suggesting that she is far from the human she believed herself to be. As the thrill of the chase heightens, readers are left with questions: who is Dawn? Who is the Crimson? Which characters can be trusted?
It is not clear what the target age group is, however the youthful ages of Dawn and Mike make it suitable for a young adult audience as well as adult readers in general. Dawn and Mike’s relationship, although sudden, becomes a key aspect of the story. For once a friendship between a male and female has no romantic connotations attached, thus not detracting from the surreal circumstances of the plot. Both Dawn and Mike show admiral traits of selflessness – something that ostracizes them from the remainder of ignoble characters.
Sadly, the dramatic climax spirals into confusion. Ever changing plot directions make it unclear who the heroes are, and perplexing scene descriptions make it difficult to picture what the author had in mind. This was a more prominent issue toward the conclusion of the book, resulting in an unsatisfying ending.
One of the major problems with the writing is the constant switching of points of view. Although written in third person, a narrative still speaks from one character’s perspective. This can change from character to character, but usually separated into different chapters. In <i>Crimson</i>, however, Foster alters the viewpoint from paragraph to paragraph. This occasionally makes the text difficult to follow.
As with any lengthy body of text, printing errors can occur – nobody is perfect. On the other hand, the amount of typos in <i>Crimson</i> makes it hard to believe that it had ever been proofread in the first place. Some mistakes are clearly typing errors that are (probably) not the author’s fault, however the repeated misuse of words such as seized/ceased and wondered/wandered are not easy to forgive.
Overall, the premise was there, the writing not so much. It is understood that Laura Foster is currently working on a sequel to <i>Crimson</i>, but its success rests on how well this first book is received. If people can tolerate the errors pinpointed above, then the author has nothing to worry about, yet as it stands, it does not look promising.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads. </i>
There is often a preconception that self-published books are not as good as those printed by world famous publishers. Yet, given a chance, there are a few that surprise you. Unfortunately, there are many issues with Laura Foster’s debut novel <i>Crimson</i>. The actual concept has promise of appealing to a range of readers due to falling into a variety of genres: fantasy, science fiction, young adult and paranormal/horror. Where the novel suffers is within the writing style and obvious lack of proof reading.
The storyline concentrates on a homeless young girl whose frightening nightmares have led her to believe she is in grave danger. Dawn Pearson, who the reader is led to believe is only twelve or thirteen years of age, is determined to get as far away from the creature in her dreams as possible. With the help of Mike, a friend she makes on the street, she narrowly escapes being captured by the red-eyed, irascible monster she has named Crimson.
While the pair flee, Dawn and Mike become aware of another terrifying beast, although neither understand why Dawn is being hunted. It soon manifests that Dawn harbours an ethereal power, suggesting that she is far from the human she believed herself to be. As the thrill of the chase heightens, readers are left with questions: who is Dawn? Who is the Crimson? Which characters can be trusted?
It is not clear what the target age group is, however the youthful ages of Dawn and Mike make it suitable for a young adult audience as well as adult readers in general. Dawn and Mike’s relationship, although sudden, becomes a key aspect of the story. For once a friendship between a male and female has no romantic connotations attached, thus not detracting from the surreal circumstances of the plot. Both Dawn and Mike show admiral traits of selflessness – something that ostracizes them from the remainder of ignoble characters.
Sadly, the dramatic climax spirals into confusion. Ever changing plot directions make it unclear who the heroes are, and perplexing scene descriptions make it difficult to picture what the author had in mind. This was a more prominent issue toward the conclusion of the book, resulting in an unsatisfying ending.
One of the major problems with the writing is the constant switching of points of view. Although written in third person, a narrative still speaks from one character’s perspective. This can change from character to character, but usually separated into different chapters. In <i>Crimson</i>, however, Foster alters the viewpoint from paragraph to paragraph. This occasionally makes the text difficult to follow.
As with any lengthy body of text, printing errors can occur – nobody is perfect. On the other hand, the amount of typos in <i>Crimson</i> makes it hard to believe that it had ever been proofread in the first place. Some mistakes are clearly typing errors that are (probably) not the author’s fault, however the repeated misuse of words such as seized/ceased and wondered/wandered are not easy to forgive.
Overall, the premise was there, the writing not so much. It is understood that Laura Foster is currently working on a sequel to <i>Crimson</i>, but its success rests on how well this first book is received. If people can tolerate the errors pinpointed above, then the author has nothing to worry about, yet as it stands, it does not look promising.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Among the Stars in Tabletop Games
Dec 3, 2021
If there is a mechanic that we at Purple Phoenix Games seem to really love, it is card drafting. One such game that has been a big hit for us (well, at least for 3 of us….) is 7 Wonders. Draft a card, pass the rest to your neighbor, draft another card from those received from your other neighbor, and repeat. Set in the Ancient World, you are working to build the most wondrous city. But Laura, why all the 7 Wonders talk in this review? Well, because Among the Stars gives me major 7 Wonders vibes, but IN SPACE. Keep reading to see what I mean.
Disclaimer: Among the Stars can be played in two different modes – Aggressive and Non-Aggressive. This review covers the core game Non-Aggressive mode of play. -L
Among the Stars is a game of card drafting and tile placement in which players take on the roles of different alien races attempting to build the most efficient space station over the span of 4 years (rounds). After the 4th and final round, players calculate their final scores, and the player with the highest score is the winner! To setup for a game, assemble the Location deck as described in the rules. Each player takes a Main Reactor card and score marker in their chosen color. Score markers are placed at zero on the score board, and players put their Main Reactor card face-up in front of them, along with 2 Energy Cubes. Players choose, or are randomly given, a Race Tile with a special Racial Ability to be used throughout the game. Randomly draw the requisite number of Objective cards and put them face-up near the score board. The game is now ready to begin!
Over the course of 4 rounds, players will be drafting cards and playing them into their Space Station. At the start of each round, every player collects 10 Credits (game currency), and draws a hand of 6 Location cards. Every turn, players will select one card from their hand, place it face-down in front of them, and will pass the remaining cards in their hand to the next player (in either clockwise or counter-clockwise direction, depending on the round). Players will then simultaneously reveal their chosen card and perform one of three actions: Build a Location, Build Power Reactor, or Discard and gain 3 Credits. To Build a Location, you pay its listed cost in Credits and/or Energy and add it to your Space Station. Locations must be placed orthogonally adjacent to an existing Location. When you build a Location, you immediately gain the listed number of VP (tracked on the score board), and may use its ability. Some abilities are immediate and earn you extra VP now, while some are delayed and will be counted at the end of the game. To Build a Power Reactor, you will first discard your selected card for the turn. Pay the 1 Credit cost of a Power Reactor and place it into your Space Station, along with 2 Energy Cubes. Every round, you get 10 Credits, but Energy Cubes do not replenish unless you build more Power Reactors, so keep an eye on your resources! The last possible action is to Discard and gain 3 Credits, and is pretty self-explanatory.
Players continue taking turns (drafting cards, passing cards, and playing cards) until they are left with no cards in hand. The round is now over. Move the round marker to the next space, and begin a new round by drawing another hand of 6 cards. After the 4th round of play, the game ends and final VP are scored. Victory Points have been earned throughout the game, but now any delayed abilities are triggered and scored, Objective points are added, and players gain points for Power Reactors and remaining Credits. The player with the highest score is the winner!
See what I mean about being 7 Wonders in space? The overall gameplay is pretty much the same thing – draft a card, pass cards, play the card – even though thematically they’re on opposite ends of time. That familiarity and simplicity of the gameplay definitely added to my enjoyment of the game. And when I say ‘simplicity’ of gameplay, I do not mean that it is an easy game necessarily. It still requires a decent amount of strategy! Not only do you have to decide what card to draft for maximum benefit, but you also need to figure out exactly where to put it in your Space Station too. Some Locations may give you extra VP for being adjacent to certain other Locations, or they may even earn more VP for distance between two Locations. You’ve got to be thinking in advance, but also able to adapt on the fly. Do you draft a card that you don’t necessarily want because you can see your opponent needs it? Or do you keep your head down and try to fly under the radar? The strategy and mechanics work very well together in creating an engaging and entertaining game.
Components. This game basically just consists of cards, a score board, and some tokens. So even though it’s nothing too fancy or anything, they’re still pretty decent quality! The artwork is thematic and fun to look at, and the layout of the cards is easy to understand. The cards are square, so that makes for some interesting shuffling, but the square shape really lends itself well to the tile-laying aspect of the gameplay. So all in all, good production quality. Just be warned – as the game progresses, it turns into quite a table hog, since you are constantly adding cards to your Space Station. Not a knock on the game, just a heads up so you give yourself plenty of room!
Will Among the Stars replace 7 Wonders for me? Ultimately, no. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a great game, but 7 Wonders just offers a little more strategy that bumps it to a higher level than Among the Stars. To introduce players to these mechanics and gameplay style, I would use Among the Stars because it is a little ‘lighter’ than 7 Wonders, if you ask me. If you are a fan of 7 Wonders and are interested in a more futuristic theme, I would definitely recommend checking out Among the Stars. It’s a neat game that has been hiding on my game shelf without the playtime it deserves. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a stellar 15 / 18.
Disclaimer: Among the Stars can be played in two different modes – Aggressive and Non-Aggressive. This review covers the core game Non-Aggressive mode of play. -L
Among the Stars is a game of card drafting and tile placement in which players take on the roles of different alien races attempting to build the most efficient space station over the span of 4 years (rounds). After the 4th and final round, players calculate their final scores, and the player with the highest score is the winner! To setup for a game, assemble the Location deck as described in the rules. Each player takes a Main Reactor card and score marker in their chosen color. Score markers are placed at zero on the score board, and players put their Main Reactor card face-up in front of them, along with 2 Energy Cubes. Players choose, or are randomly given, a Race Tile with a special Racial Ability to be used throughout the game. Randomly draw the requisite number of Objective cards and put them face-up near the score board. The game is now ready to begin!
Over the course of 4 rounds, players will be drafting cards and playing them into their Space Station. At the start of each round, every player collects 10 Credits (game currency), and draws a hand of 6 Location cards. Every turn, players will select one card from their hand, place it face-down in front of them, and will pass the remaining cards in their hand to the next player (in either clockwise or counter-clockwise direction, depending on the round). Players will then simultaneously reveal their chosen card and perform one of three actions: Build a Location, Build Power Reactor, or Discard and gain 3 Credits. To Build a Location, you pay its listed cost in Credits and/or Energy and add it to your Space Station. Locations must be placed orthogonally adjacent to an existing Location. When you build a Location, you immediately gain the listed number of VP (tracked on the score board), and may use its ability. Some abilities are immediate and earn you extra VP now, while some are delayed and will be counted at the end of the game. To Build a Power Reactor, you will first discard your selected card for the turn. Pay the 1 Credit cost of a Power Reactor and place it into your Space Station, along with 2 Energy Cubes. Every round, you get 10 Credits, but Energy Cubes do not replenish unless you build more Power Reactors, so keep an eye on your resources! The last possible action is to Discard and gain 3 Credits, and is pretty self-explanatory.
Players continue taking turns (drafting cards, passing cards, and playing cards) until they are left with no cards in hand. The round is now over. Move the round marker to the next space, and begin a new round by drawing another hand of 6 cards. After the 4th round of play, the game ends and final VP are scored. Victory Points have been earned throughout the game, but now any delayed abilities are triggered and scored, Objective points are added, and players gain points for Power Reactors and remaining Credits. The player with the highest score is the winner!
See what I mean about being 7 Wonders in space? The overall gameplay is pretty much the same thing – draft a card, pass cards, play the card – even though thematically they’re on opposite ends of time. That familiarity and simplicity of the gameplay definitely added to my enjoyment of the game. And when I say ‘simplicity’ of gameplay, I do not mean that it is an easy game necessarily. It still requires a decent amount of strategy! Not only do you have to decide what card to draft for maximum benefit, but you also need to figure out exactly where to put it in your Space Station too. Some Locations may give you extra VP for being adjacent to certain other Locations, or they may even earn more VP for distance between two Locations. You’ve got to be thinking in advance, but also able to adapt on the fly. Do you draft a card that you don’t necessarily want because you can see your opponent needs it? Or do you keep your head down and try to fly under the radar? The strategy and mechanics work very well together in creating an engaging and entertaining game.
Components. This game basically just consists of cards, a score board, and some tokens. So even though it’s nothing too fancy or anything, they’re still pretty decent quality! The artwork is thematic and fun to look at, and the layout of the cards is easy to understand. The cards are square, so that makes for some interesting shuffling, but the square shape really lends itself well to the tile-laying aspect of the gameplay. So all in all, good production quality. Just be warned – as the game progresses, it turns into quite a table hog, since you are constantly adding cards to your Space Station. Not a knock on the game, just a heads up so you give yourself plenty of room!
Will Among the Stars replace 7 Wonders for me? Ultimately, no. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a great game, but 7 Wonders just offers a little more strategy that bumps it to a higher level than Among the Stars. To introduce players to these mechanics and gameplay style, I would use Among the Stars because it is a little ‘lighter’ than 7 Wonders, if you ask me. If you are a fan of 7 Wonders and are interested in a more futuristic theme, I would definitely recommend checking out Among the Stars. It’s a neat game that has been hiding on my game shelf without the playtime it deserves. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a stellar 15 / 18.
Henry David Thoreau: A Life
Book
Walden. Yesterday I came here to live. That entry from the journal of Henry David Thoreau, and the...
The Future of Foreign Intelligence: Privacy and Surveillance in a Digital Age
Book
Since the Revolutionary War, America's military and political leaders have recognized that U.S....
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Starlight Stage in Tabletop Games
Jul 25, 2019
Your talent agency is failing. All you have available are rookies looking for their big breaks. However, they will take almost any work you can give them, and they can use their experience to reinvent themselves to bring greater visibility to your agency and greater star power for themselves. Do you have what it takes to show them their true potential and set them up for success? Or will your skills in talent management sink your ship before leaving the harbor? Let’s find out.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Starlight Stage is a deck building, card drafting, and set collection game with a very unique theme and art style. As with all deck builders, players start with a hand of beginner cards. In this case, all players are dealt the same hand of starter idol, model, and actress cards. These are collectively called “Idols,” which is confusing, but I will address that in my summary. Essentially, each different type of idol provides you with a different type of currency/energy/power/resource to use when buying or drafting newer, more powerful cards.
On your turn you MAY flip over a card from one of the three decks available – Idol, Fame, or Event cards. Then you play cards from your hand in order to acquire more cards from the offer rows. Typically, you may only use one idol card per purchase, unless you are purchasing an Event card – you may send more than one idol to an Event. If there are no cards that you want, or that you can afford to purchase, you may “take a lesson,” by grabbing a resource token.
Tired of using just the starter idol cards all the time? Idols may reinvent themselves to become stronger. You do this by exchanging your starter (or upgraded) idol card and adding supporting cards and tokens to purchase a stronger idol card. These will typically provide more currency used to purchase more and better cards from the offer rows as well as providing more end game VPs. Example (shown below): exchange your starting Model idol card (blue diamond) plus several other supporting cards and tokens to transform your current Model into Super Idol Saori Tenkawa, who now provides you with one of each resource each time she is played.
Play continues until the Fame deck runs out, and points from cards are tallied to determine the winner.
Components: This game is a ton of cards and some resource tokens. The cards are great quality and will hold up well to repeated use, but super fans of the game may want to sleeve them, as the cards will be handled quite a bit. The tokens are typical cardboard chits and feature the diamond, heart, or music note symbols that are used throughout the game. Overall, production quality is pretty good.
So here’s the rub. When I pulled this out to play with Josh and Laura, we were immediately impacted by the art on the cards. When I started to explain the game mechanics and flow, Laura just COULD NOT contain her giggles as I tried to tactfully cover how to make your girls do jobs and attend events so that they can later upgrade themselves. I have to admit, the theme is not one I am accustomed to nor one that I can really get behind. I understand I come from a different culture background than that which is depicted in this game, but the theme is a definite detraction for us. Similarly, the art on the cards ranges from cute and uniquely anime to outright demeaning and near softcore hentai (there is no real NSFW artwork on the cards, but I certainly will not be playing this with my son until he’s at least 18). The idea of employing only young females and assigning them to different jobs to gain more fame or sending them to photo shoot events in skimpy clothing is just not very PC and not very 21st Century American. Again, I cannot stress enough that I do understand where this game comes from and the intended audience, but that intended audience is certainly not a group of highly inclusive, mostly minority, LGBTQIA member and allies, gender equal, 30-something board game enthusiasts and reviewers.
That said, the game itself can provide an interesting play session, but I highly recommend only playing with a specific group of people that you know will tolerate its suggestive art and overtones. For us at Purple Phoenix Games, we suggest Starlight Stage consider reinventing itself with a different theme. Also, I think some alternate terminology could be used for the Idol deck of cards that contain Idol, Model, and Actress cards. A minor quip, but it should be stated. Perhaps with some “Americanizing,” or at least having it be more PC, it would then overcome its 6/18 score and be invited to Hollywood with Simon Cowell.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
Starlight Stage is a deck building, card drafting, and set collection game with a very unique theme and art style. As with all deck builders, players start with a hand of beginner cards. In this case, all players are dealt the same hand of starter idol, model, and actress cards. These are collectively called “Idols,” which is confusing, but I will address that in my summary. Essentially, each different type of idol provides you with a different type of currency/energy/power/resource to use when buying or drafting newer, more powerful cards.
On your turn you MAY flip over a card from one of the three decks available – Idol, Fame, or Event cards. Then you play cards from your hand in order to acquire more cards from the offer rows. Typically, you may only use one idol card per purchase, unless you are purchasing an Event card – you may send more than one idol to an Event. If there are no cards that you want, or that you can afford to purchase, you may “take a lesson,” by grabbing a resource token.
Tired of using just the starter idol cards all the time? Idols may reinvent themselves to become stronger. You do this by exchanging your starter (or upgraded) idol card and adding supporting cards and tokens to purchase a stronger idol card. These will typically provide more currency used to purchase more and better cards from the offer rows as well as providing more end game VPs. Example (shown below): exchange your starting Model idol card (blue diamond) plus several other supporting cards and tokens to transform your current Model into Super Idol Saori Tenkawa, who now provides you with one of each resource each time she is played.
Play continues until the Fame deck runs out, and points from cards are tallied to determine the winner.
Components: This game is a ton of cards and some resource tokens. The cards are great quality and will hold up well to repeated use, but super fans of the game may want to sleeve them, as the cards will be handled quite a bit. The tokens are typical cardboard chits and feature the diamond, heart, or music note symbols that are used throughout the game. Overall, production quality is pretty good.
So here’s the rub. When I pulled this out to play with Josh and Laura, we were immediately impacted by the art on the cards. When I started to explain the game mechanics and flow, Laura just COULD NOT contain her giggles as I tried to tactfully cover how to make your girls do jobs and attend events so that they can later upgrade themselves. I have to admit, the theme is not one I am accustomed to nor one that I can really get behind. I understand I come from a different culture background than that which is depicted in this game, but the theme is a definite detraction for us. Similarly, the art on the cards ranges from cute and uniquely anime to outright demeaning and near softcore hentai (there is no real NSFW artwork on the cards, but I certainly will not be playing this with my son until he’s at least 18). The idea of employing only young females and assigning them to different jobs to gain more fame or sending them to photo shoot events in skimpy clothing is just not very PC and not very 21st Century American. Again, I cannot stress enough that I do understand where this game comes from and the intended audience, but that intended audience is certainly not a group of highly inclusive, mostly minority, LGBTQIA member and allies, gender equal, 30-something board game enthusiasts and reviewers.
That said, the game itself can provide an interesting play session, but I highly recommend only playing with a specific group of people that you know will tolerate its suggestive art and overtones. For us at Purple Phoenix Games, we suggest Starlight Stage consider reinventing itself with a different theme. Also, I think some alternate terminology could be used for the Idol deck of cards that contain Idol, Model, and Actress cards. A minor quip, but it should be stated. Perhaps with some “Americanizing,” or at least having it be more PC, it would then overcome its 6/18 score and be invited to Hollywood with Simon Cowell.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)