Search
Search results
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Lost Letters of William Woolf in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I would like to begin by saying, that this blurb sounds very very intriguing, and I got ready for a love story, but oh sugar, how deceiving it is. There is soooooo much more to this book, it is very complex, thought-provoking and deep.
William and Claire are married for a very long time, their relationship saw everything, from happy times to major disappointments, now they are kind of wondering whether to continue with it or to go separate ways. So while all this is happening, William experiences everything that is mentioned in the blurb as well. So yeah, this is a very complicated story…
This story is told from multiple perspectives, in this case, William’s and Claire’s, and I am very happy, that I got to know the characters better this way. The more I read, the more annoyed I got. Even though the characters are very realistic and believable, I really disliked Claire. I just didn’t like her personality, bossiness, and I just couldn’t connect with her. I liked William, he is kind and generous, but I think he was really weak and it annoyed me that he allowed being treated like a mop.
I think the plot of this book is quite unique, highlighting couples relationship and thoughts that run through so many couples in real life. This novel carries so many feelings, memories from the past, and thoughts about the future. The narrative travels between past when they had a blooming relationship to the present when the situation is tensed. I really liked that the author chose different settings for this novel. The author describes Ireland beautifully as well as London and other towns. I am really curious, how the author did her research for this book because I would love to be a lost letter’s detective. 😀 That sounds so exciting! 🙂 Another thing that I really enjoyed was William’s little adventures while looking for the owner of those mysterious “Great Love” letters, that kept my interest going, and I was curious to find out, what William is going to do.
Helen Cullen’s prose is absolutely beautiful and it is a great debut. I found this book easy to read and it was an enjoyable journey. The chapters are a decent length, but because this novel is filled with thoughts, sometimes my mind did wander away, some of those thoughts repeated itself and in some cases, it was just too much of it for me. The ending rounded up the story nicely, but I have mixed feelings about it. I am kind of happy with the outcome but at the same time kind of disappointed.
So, to conclude, don’t be fooled by the blurb, there is way more depth in this book than it shows. It analyzes a very complex couple’s relationship, letting the reader really get into characters heads. I enjoyed this book, and if you wish to find out what happened to William, Claire and the mysterious letter sender, do give this book a try and I hope you will enjoy their story. 🙂
William and Claire are married for a very long time, their relationship saw everything, from happy times to major disappointments, now they are kind of wondering whether to continue with it or to go separate ways. So while all this is happening, William experiences everything that is mentioned in the blurb as well. So yeah, this is a very complicated story…
This story is told from multiple perspectives, in this case, William’s and Claire’s, and I am very happy, that I got to know the characters better this way. The more I read, the more annoyed I got. Even though the characters are very realistic and believable, I really disliked Claire. I just didn’t like her personality, bossiness, and I just couldn’t connect with her. I liked William, he is kind and generous, but I think he was really weak and it annoyed me that he allowed being treated like a mop.
I think the plot of this book is quite unique, highlighting couples relationship and thoughts that run through so many couples in real life. This novel carries so many feelings, memories from the past, and thoughts about the future. The narrative travels between past when they had a blooming relationship to the present when the situation is tensed. I really liked that the author chose different settings for this novel. The author describes Ireland beautifully as well as London and other towns. I am really curious, how the author did her research for this book because I would love to be a lost letter’s detective. 😀 That sounds so exciting! 🙂 Another thing that I really enjoyed was William’s little adventures while looking for the owner of those mysterious “Great Love” letters, that kept my interest going, and I was curious to find out, what William is going to do.
Helen Cullen’s prose is absolutely beautiful and it is a great debut. I found this book easy to read and it was an enjoyable journey. The chapters are a decent length, but because this novel is filled with thoughts, sometimes my mind did wander away, some of those thoughts repeated itself and in some cases, it was just too much of it for me. The ending rounded up the story nicely, but I have mixed feelings about it. I am kind of happy with the outcome but at the same time kind of disappointed.
So, to conclude, don’t be fooled by the blurb, there is way more depth in this book than it shows. It analyzes a very complex couple’s relationship, letting the reader really get into characters heads. I enjoyed this book, and if you wish to find out what happened to William, Claire and the mysterious letter sender, do give this book a try and I hope you will enjoy their story. 🙂
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Woman in the Wood in Books
Sep 24, 2020
I would like to begin by saying, that this is my first book by this author, and it really surprised me. It felt like I was reading a literary classics and I really hope it will become one day.
The main characters of this book are twins Maisy and Duncan, and author really puts a lot of effort in introducing them. Generally, all the characters in this book were very well introduced and rounded. Their personalities were shining in this book, and there were so many to choose from. Lesley Pearse kept really pleasant balance between cold and warm characters, giving a taste of both and keeping the diversity going. I really liked the way author chose different ages for the characters, so everyone, from young to old will find someone to relate to. I do love books where characters have a voice, and this book didn’t disappoint me with that, but the transition between different perspectives was sometimes difficult to follow for me, as it just starts from new paragraph. That’s why, for me, this book required some concentration and suitable atmosphere to read it.
The plot of this book starts in 1960 in West London but quite quickly it is transferred to Nightingales mansion in Burley. Well, it was way before I was born and there are so many clues of the 60ies, but during whole book I had the feeling of early nineteenth century. It was because of the elegant and refined writing style used in this book, everything in this book screamed of politeness and rich mannerism, that’s why it felt like reading one of the classic books.
The story of this novel was flowing very smoothly, without any story changing twists or turns. There were some really interesting discoveries along the way, which made the book interesting, but it was not very fast paced for me. L. Pearse was discussing really interesting topics in this book, such as: children growing up with lack of parental love; the strong bond between siblings (in this case twins); how paedophilia and child abuse affects young kids mentally and physically; why people choose to live away from society; and I believe some of them were taken from author’s own colourful life.
As I mentioned before, the writing style of this book is very refined and sophisticated, and for me it is not easy to read such work, but very refreshing at the same time. The chapters of this book are not very short, but it changes between different characters perspectives, so they are not boring. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, there are some nasty things discussed in this book, so if you have an eager sensitive child who would like to read this novel, it could be a little distressing. The ending of this book wasn’t very exciting, but it was well deserved and rounded the story fully, leaving me satisfied with the outcome of this story. So to conclude, I enjoyed reading this rich novel, filled with unexpected writing style, well rounded, interesting characters, and it discusses very wide range of life aspects. Get it, read it, enjoy it!
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
The main characters of this book are twins Maisy and Duncan, and author really puts a lot of effort in introducing them. Generally, all the characters in this book were very well introduced and rounded. Their personalities were shining in this book, and there were so many to choose from. Lesley Pearse kept really pleasant balance between cold and warm characters, giving a taste of both and keeping the diversity going. I really liked the way author chose different ages for the characters, so everyone, from young to old will find someone to relate to. I do love books where characters have a voice, and this book didn’t disappoint me with that, but the transition between different perspectives was sometimes difficult to follow for me, as it just starts from new paragraph. That’s why, for me, this book required some concentration and suitable atmosphere to read it.
The plot of this book starts in 1960 in West London but quite quickly it is transferred to Nightingales mansion in Burley. Well, it was way before I was born and there are so many clues of the 60ies, but during whole book I had the feeling of early nineteenth century. It was because of the elegant and refined writing style used in this book, everything in this book screamed of politeness and rich mannerism, that’s why it felt like reading one of the classic books.
The story of this novel was flowing very smoothly, without any story changing twists or turns. There were some really interesting discoveries along the way, which made the book interesting, but it was not very fast paced for me. L. Pearse was discussing really interesting topics in this book, such as: children growing up with lack of parental love; the strong bond between siblings (in this case twins); how paedophilia and child abuse affects young kids mentally and physically; why people choose to live away from society; and I believe some of them were taken from author’s own colourful life.
As I mentioned before, the writing style of this book is very refined and sophisticated, and for me it is not easy to read such work, but very refreshing at the same time. The chapters of this book are not very short, but it changes between different characters perspectives, so they are not boring. I would like to throw in a disclaimer, there are some nasty things discussed in this book, so if you have an eager sensitive child who would like to read this novel, it could be a little distressing. The ending of this book wasn’t very exciting, but it was well deserved and rounded the story fully, leaving me satisfied with the outcome of this story. So to conclude, I enjoyed reading this rich novel, filled with unexpected writing style, well rounded, interesting characters, and it discusses very wide range of life aspects. Get it, read it, enjoy it!
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
When I first saw the trailer for Supernova, I could tell that we were in for a fairly intense depiction of dementia and its effect on loved ones, delivered by a couple of veteran actors at the top of their game. Consequently, it was one of the movies I was most looking forward to as part of this years London Film Festival, and while it wasn’t quite as full-on or emotional for me as I was expecting, that’s certainly not the fault of Colin Firth or Stanley Tucci, who are both outstanding.
“We’re not going back, you know,” Sam (Firth) says to husband Tusker (Tucci) as they head off in their campervan for a road trip. He’s referring to any items they might have needed for the trip which are left behind, but those words will prove to hold a much deeper meaning as their journey progresses. Tusker, a best-selling author, has deliberately left his medication at home, having decided that it is having no effect in his battle with dementia. When Sam leaves Tusker in the van to head into a supermarket for supplies, he returns to find Tusker missing - a frantic drive down nearby country lanes finds him standing alone, lost and confused. His mind is clearly beginning to fail him.
As they put the incident behind them and continue their journey, we get a real sense of the love and commitment they both share. As they travel through the beautiful scenery of the Lake District, they bicker and joke with each other, like a gay version of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon series, The Trip. “It isn’t even satisfying half the time,” Tusker admits after teasing Sam. When asked why he bothers anymore, he just smiles and replies “Because of the other half.”
Tusker continues to work on a new novel, but is finding it increasingly difficult to write anymore and has instead become preoccupied with gazing at the night sky, fascinated with astronomy. Sam, a semi-retired concert pianist, has taken a break to join Tusker on one last road-trip, revisiting locations from their lives together. They stop off at the home of Sam’s sister and her family, where a surprise birthday party brings together old friends and distant family. A chance to reminisce and take stock of what the future holds as Tusker continues to deteriorate. But a discovery during the party leads to some more serious discussions between Sam and Tusker, forcing them to acknowledge and attempt to come to terms with what lies ahead for them both.
Supernova didn’t head in the direction I expected it to, or deliver it in the way I envisioned from the trailer. For the most part, it’s just simple conversations between two lovers, sometimes playful, sometimes deadly serious. But it is delivered by two incredible actors, on peak-form and with such wonderful chemistry. And while it didn’t quite leave me feeling as emotional as it did for many others who watched it as part of the festival, it certainly managed to make a lasting impact.
“We’re not going back, you know,” Sam (Firth) says to husband Tusker (Tucci) as they head off in their campervan for a road trip. He’s referring to any items they might have needed for the trip which are left behind, but those words will prove to hold a much deeper meaning as their journey progresses. Tusker, a best-selling author, has deliberately left his medication at home, having decided that it is having no effect in his battle with dementia. When Sam leaves Tusker in the van to head into a supermarket for supplies, he returns to find Tusker missing - a frantic drive down nearby country lanes finds him standing alone, lost and confused. His mind is clearly beginning to fail him.
As they put the incident behind them and continue their journey, we get a real sense of the love and commitment they both share. As they travel through the beautiful scenery of the Lake District, they bicker and joke with each other, like a gay version of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon series, The Trip. “It isn’t even satisfying half the time,” Tusker admits after teasing Sam. When asked why he bothers anymore, he just smiles and replies “Because of the other half.”
Tusker continues to work on a new novel, but is finding it increasingly difficult to write anymore and has instead become preoccupied with gazing at the night sky, fascinated with astronomy. Sam, a semi-retired concert pianist, has taken a break to join Tusker on one last road-trip, revisiting locations from their lives together. They stop off at the home of Sam’s sister and her family, where a surprise birthday party brings together old friends and distant family. A chance to reminisce and take stock of what the future holds as Tusker continues to deteriorate. But a discovery during the party leads to some more serious discussions between Sam and Tusker, forcing them to acknowledge and attempt to come to terms with what lies ahead for them both.
Supernova didn’t head in the direction I expected it to, or deliver it in the way I envisioned from the trailer. For the most part, it’s just simple conversations between two lovers, sometimes playful, sometimes deadly serious. But it is delivered by two incredible actors, on peak-form and with such wonderful chemistry. And while it didn’t quite leave me feeling as emotional as it did for many others who watched it as part of the festival, it certainly managed to make a lasting impact.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Jan 11, 2021
Watchable but a little misdirected
Misbehaviour is a 2020 drama directed by Philippa Lowthorpe based on a true story, that follows a group of women from the Women’s Liberation Movement as they attempt to disrupt the 1970 Miss World pageant being held in London.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Nolte steals the movie
It's always interesting to me that when I leave a film and realize that the best part of the movie I just saw was the extra scene during the credits. What were the folks that made this movie thinking? Did they save the best for last? Most of the time it is - unfortunately - that this scene shines BECAUSE it really has nothing to do with the rest of the film, in both style and substance.
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Band 4: The Air We Breathe in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary, Inspirational
Page Count: 324 pages (of nauseation)
Average Goodreads Rating: 3/5 stars (why, Goodreads? You’re usually so tough on books)
My Rating: 1.5/ 5 stars
Truthfully, this is actually a great story. Yeah. So great. It’s the perfect backstory for its horror sequel: The Martins Trump Manson on Body Count.
As a romance it fucking sucks.
I don’t even know where to begin. This book is so full of sugary sap that it makes pasta covered in maple and chocolate syrup and marshmallows look appetizing.
original
Still not as sweet as The Air We Breathe
Here’s the thing: I’m not actually a bitter and cynical person. I like sap and fluff. I smile and giggle during romance scenes, I’ve obsessively written cute and romantic fanfiction and my boyfriend and I were arguably the most nauseatingly cute couple to ever walk the halls of John Bapst Memorial High School.
But I gagged reading this book for the amount of love-doveyness.
Marguerite is on holiday in London, recovering from the sudden deaths of her parents which liberated her from 27 years of being suffocated and controlled by them. While there, she has a random chance encounter with Chase Martin, a depressed rock star exhausted from touring with his band. Chase and Marguerite are drawn together by a strange unknown force. They don’t know why they have such a strong connection to each other, but they do know that life without the other would not be living at all.
I actually really liked the beginning and thought that it would shape up to be an interesting and sweet romance. We see them before they meet in the coffee shop, miserable and depressed, and then while sipping her drink and reading her book, Marguerite feels Chase’s anxiety. So she buys him a decaf drink and gives it to him, saying she could feel his anxiety from across the shop. That’s great.
The two of them realize they’re drawn together and can find each other happiness and Marguerite ends up spending the night at Chase’s house just so they can find comfort in having another human being near them. That’s great, too.
The beginning is by far my favorite part because it has promise for a good story and has more vivid scenes than any other part of the book.
But then it moves too quickly from there.
From that moment on, the two of them are so deep in love they make Romeo and Juliet look reserved and cautious. They are constantly “blown away” by each other and moved to tears every minute by each other. They “get a kick out of” every little joke they make to each other, and they start living together immediately after they meet. After a week (that’s right, a flipping week), Chase proposes to her.
And if I had a pin for every time one of those quoted phrases appeared in this novel, I could pulverize a voodoo doll. The repeated phrases and excessive emotion of the characters is definitely the worst part.
I’m still not that aggravated with this book, yet. Yeah, the insta love irks me, but I figure there will be a great plot with lots of trouble between the two of them after they marry. After all, they barely know each other and they need to figure out what this psychic connection means. Maybe they’re the incarnated souls of Hawkgirl and Hawkman and they’re about to get killed by an immortal psychopath (did I mention I’m a huge nerd?).
Nope. The two of them agree on everything, right down to how to decorate the house and the new rule that shoes are off upon entering. And things continue to be hunky dory for practically forever. All of Chase’s friends, and their girlfriends, love Marguerite and nobody questions their whirlwind romance. Yeah, because a severely depressed person getting engaged after a week of dating isn’t a cry for help or anything.
And there is so much to dislike about Chase’s and Marguerite’s decisions. Marguerite is forced to quit her job so she can move to London to be with Chase.
Never mind that she liked her job in Pennsylvania and didn’t express any wish to be a housewife. Never mind that Chase was getting tired of touring and thinking about quitting the band anyway. It’s her life that gets turned upside down.
Also, so much for her newfound freedom following her parents’ deaths! Now she’s shadowed by a bodyguard wherever she goes, needs to sneak into the backs of restaurant when she wants to eat out, and can’t even walk to the store for fear of being accosted by her husbands’ fans.
Yes, Chase’s life gets changed too. He now has a wife that cooks meals for him, cleans for him, furnishes and decorates his house for him, and hands him a cold towel when he walks off stage. He made some real damn sacrifices when he married Marguerite.
bitch_please_by_teslapunk-d32znko
But life goes on. With a lot of summary and over thirty years, it goes on.
Aside from dialogues and scenes peppered here and there, the book is mostly sweet and sappy summary of their lives. Dark things happen now and then but they’re glossed over and smothered in fluff.
If this storyline was done by a competent writer, this actually could have been an entertaining series about the Martin family. There is actually plenty of material between the psychic connection, Marguerite’s tragic background, a miscarriage, a huge celebrity drugging conspiracy, two sets of twins, a near death experience, and a baby on the doorstep.
But somehow it becomes boring and plotless when it’s all crammed into one book that seems to drag on forever. During all of this my main concern, the psychic connection, was never explained. It’s just a gift from God. One that turns their “perfect” (as in creepily well behaved and mature) children into kids from The Shining. Because they also have a psychic connection. They can “feel” each other and their parents. Oh, and talk to their dead sister, apparently, when their dead sister wants to tell them about babies being left on their doorstep.
“This is Baby Sarah,” Matt said.
“Baby Sarah?” Marguerite asked.
(Both sets of twins) said “Yes. We knew she was coming.”
Chase asked, “How did you know?”
“Baby Margaret told us,” Mark said.
Also, when Chase and Marguerite choose Sarah’s full name, all four children, in a different room, wake up from a dead sleep, sit up in unison, and announce that the baby is named.
May I present the newest additions to the Martin family?
If you want to read a rockstar romance, I recommend Love’s Rhythm by Lexxie Couper, which isn’t perfectly crafted, but leagues beyond The Band 4: The Air We Breathe.
Page Count: 324 pages (of nauseation)
Average Goodreads Rating: 3/5 stars (why, Goodreads? You’re usually so tough on books)
My Rating: 1.5/ 5 stars
Truthfully, this is actually a great story. Yeah. So great. It’s the perfect backstory for its horror sequel: The Martins Trump Manson on Body Count.
As a romance it fucking sucks.
I don’t even know where to begin. This book is so full of sugary sap that it makes pasta covered in maple and chocolate syrup and marshmallows look appetizing.
original
Still not as sweet as The Air We Breathe
Here’s the thing: I’m not actually a bitter and cynical person. I like sap and fluff. I smile and giggle during romance scenes, I’ve obsessively written cute and romantic fanfiction and my boyfriend and I were arguably the most nauseatingly cute couple to ever walk the halls of John Bapst Memorial High School.
But I gagged reading this book for the amount of love-doveyness.
Marguerite is on holiday in London, recovering from the sudden deaths of her parents which liberated her from 27 years of being suffocated and controlled by them. While there, she has a random chance encounter with Chase Martin, a depressed rock star exhausted from touring with his band. Chase and Marguerite are drawn together by a strange unknown force. They don’t know why they have such a strong connection to each other, but they do know that life without the other would not be living at all.
I actually really liked the beginning and thought that it would shape up to be an interesting and sweet romance. We see them before they meet in the coffee shop, miserable and depressed, and then while sipping her drink and reading her book, Marguerite feels Chase’s anxiety. So she buys him a decaf drink and gives it to him, saying she could feel his anxiety from across the shop. That’s great.
The two of them realize they’re drawn together and can find each other happiness and Marguerite ends up spending the night at Chase’s house just so they can find comfort in having another human being near them. That’s great, too.
The beginning is by far my favorite part because it has promise for a good story and has more vivid scenes than any other part of the book.
But then it moves too quickly from there.
From that moment on, the two of them are so deep in love they make Romeo and Juliet look reserved and cautious. They are constantly “blown away” by each other and moved to tears every minute by each other. They “get a kick out of” every little joke they make to each other, and they start living together immediately after they meet. After a week (that’s right, a flipping week), Chase proposes to her.
And if I had a pin for every time one of those quoted phrases appeared in this novel, I could pulverize a voodoo doll. The repeated phrases and excessive emotion of the characters is definitely the worst part.
I’m still not that aggravated with this book, yet. Yeah, the insta love irks me, but I figure there will be a great plot with lots of trouble between the two of them after they marry. After all, they barely know each other and they need to figure out what this psychic connection means. Maybe they’re the incarnated souls of Hawkgirl and Hawkman and they’re about to get killed by an immortal psychopath (did I mention I’m a huge nerd?).
Nope. The two of them agree on everything, right down to how to decorate the house and the new rule that shoes are off upon entering. And things continue to be hunky dory for practically forever. All of Chase’s friends, and their girlfriends, love Marguerite and nobody questions their whirlwind romance. Yeah, because a severely depressed person getting engaged after a week of dating isn’t a cry for help or anything.
And there is so much to dislike about Chase’s and Marguerite’s decisions. Marguerite is forced to quit her job so she can move to London to be with Chase.
Never mind that she liked her job in Pennsylvania and didn’t express any wish to be a housewife. Never mind that Chase was getting tired of touring and thinking about quitting the band anyway. It’s her life that gets turned upside down.
Also, so much for her newfound freedom following her parents’ deaths! Now she’s shadowed by a bodyguard wherever she goes, needs to sneak into the backs of restaurant when she wants to eat out, and can’t even walk to the store for fear of being accosted by her husbands’ fans.
Yes, Chase’s life gets changed too. He now has a wife that cooks meals for him, cleans for him, furnishes and decorates his house for him, and hands him a cold towel when he walks off stage. He made some real damn sacrifices when he married Marguerite.
bitch_please_by_teslapunk-d32znko
But life goes on. With a lot of summary and over thirty years, it goes on.
Aside from dialogues and scenes peppered here and there, the book is mostly sweet and sappy summary of their lives. Dark things happen now and then but they’re glossed over and smothered in fluff.
If this storyline was done by a competent writer, this actually could have been an entertaining series about the Martin family. There is actually plenty of material between the psychic connection, Marguerite’s tragic background, a miscarriage, a huge celebrity drugging conspiracy, two sets of twins, a near death experience, and a baby on the doorstep.
But somehow it becomes boring and plotless when it’s all crammed into one book that seems to drag on forever. During all of this my main concern, the psychic connection, was never explained. It’s just a gift from God. One that turns their “perfect” (as in creepily well behaved and mature) children into kids from The Shining. Because they also have a psychic connection. They can “feel” each other and their parents. Oh, and talk to their dead sister, apparently, when their dead sister wants to tell them about babies being left on their doorstep.
“This is Baby Sarah,” Matt said.
“Baby Sarah?” Marguerite asked.
(Both sets of twins) said “Yes. We knew she was coming.”
Chase asked, “How did you know?”
“Baby Margaret told us,” Mark said.
Also, when Chase and Marguerite choose Sarah’s full name, all four children, in a different room, wake up from a dead sleep, sit up in unison, and announce that the baby is named.
May I present the newest additions to the Martin family?
If you want to read a rockstar romance, I recommend Love’s Rhythm by Lexxie Couper, which isn’t perfectly crafted, but leagues beyond The Band 4: The Air We Breathe.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What first attracted you Dr Mann to the movie with the scantily-clad Amazonians?”
Amazonians deliver! And how. The much anticipated new Wonder Woman movie is with us, and for once the film lives up to the wall-to-wall marketing hype.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.
With a heavy dose of mythology, Diana is growing up as the cossetted daughter of Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen, “Gladiator”), the Queen of the Amazons, on the hidden paradise island of Themyscira. Trained up as a warrior by Hippolyta’s sister, General Antiope (Robin Wright of “House of Cards”), Diana is clearly something special. Her ego is reinforced by the knowledge that she was made of clay with life breathed into her by the God Zeus. It’s enough to turn a girl’s head!
It’s 1917 and the man-free paradise is shaken up when an American spy by the name of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine, “Star Trek: Beyond“) crash-lands in the waters off Themyscira. (And yes… you didn’t mishear me… this film genuinely features a hero with both the names “Steve” and ‘Trevor”). Prince Eric – no, sorry, wrong film – is saved and awakened on the beach by Diana as the others arrive. “Thank God!”, say the Amazonians. “At last, someone to process the 200 year backlog of washing and ironing”!
But Steve (an “above average specimen”, LOL) is not long for paradise as he needs to return to the war with the results of his spy-work: a chemistry book stolen from the gorgeously deformed Dr Maru (Elena Anaya), gas-developer for the evil General Ludendorff (Danny Huston). Seeing Ludendorff to be her God-like nemesis Ares, Diana returns with Steve to the WW1 battlefields with the intent of killing the God of War and so ending the ‘war to end all wars’.
Much ‘fish out of water’ fun is had with Diana meeting civilised London society, although perhaps this section of the film doesn’t quite live up to its full potential: having ice cream for the first time, without any sign of surprise, all she can come up with is an amusing but rather lame “You must be very proud”.
But where the film really accelerates into awesomeness is when Diana reaches ‘The Front’. She emerges from the trenches like some shimmering vision of hotness, to set male and lesbian hearts a flutter. Its the most memorable trench-exit since the finale of “Black Adder 4”, and the subsequent scenes of Diana single-handedly facing the German guns is for me one of the most compelling and enjoyable scenes in any recent DC or Marvel movie.
Holding all this together is the ex-Israeli army-trainer Gal Gadot in the title role. And man oh man, what a Gal! Statuesque, athletic but also sweet, charming and emotionally fragile she completely owns this role from beginning to end. Gadot made a memorable entry in the otherwise poor “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (#marthagate #neverforget #neverforgive) but nothing prepares you for just how great she is in this outing. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that this film, although having a UK 12 certificate, is a film of immense danger to heterosexual teenagers of any age (#humor):
All boys will be cast into a lifetime of misery, never able to find a woman that can possibly live up to the impossibly perfect vision of Diana Prince, tearing up the German army with fists and whip!;
All girls WILL BECOME LESBIANS AFTER WATCHING THIS FILM!
Parents: you have been warned! 🙂
Chris Pine – the thinking women’s Chris Pratt – once again proves himself as a talented actor who manages to successfully morph to inhabit the role he plays. Much as he did in the excellent “Hell or High Water“, not once did I equate him to be James Tiberius Kirk after the first 5 minutes.
Effective in supporting roles are David Thewlis (“Harry Potter”) as a ‘helpful’ army bod and an almost unrecognisable Lucy Davis (“The Office”) as Etta, Steve’s comedic secretary. Steve’s rather unlikely sidekicks of Sameer (Said Taghmaoui, “American Hustle“), Charlie (Ewen Bremner, “Trainspotting”) and ‘The Chief’ (Eugene Brave Rock “The Revenant“) all rather fade into the woodwork by comparison.
I saw the film in 3D (“careful now… you could take an eye out with those things”) and very good it was too. Aside from some rather unnecessary Amazonian arrows, its never feels overdone, and elements of it were extremely effective.
Another star of the show is the superb Wonder Woman theme by Hans Zimmer, here rolled out by the film’s composer Rupert Gregson-Williams (“Hacksaw Ridge“). Unfortunately, the rest of the soundtrack is not particularly memorable.
The film shifts into more traditional yawn-worthy ‘superhero finale’ mode in the last twenty minutes, which is a bit of a shame. It’s also really curious that for such a sexually charged film there is an almost complete absence of ‘lurrve’ on show. The one love scene coquettishly fades to a view of the outside window. Was this to protect the film’s family friendly rating (probably) or that the director didn’t want to show her heroine in a remotely submissive position (possibly)? More frustratingly, the morning after there is no mention of it at all! (“Move along, nothing to see here”). I at least wanted some sort of recognition that a human/God liaison had taken place: Steve grimacing a bit when he sits down; or Diana on the blower to Themyscira saying “Yes, you were right Mum. 5 minutes in, and it just snapped clean off!”
I know my friend David Moody (of markanddave vblog fame, and a big DC/Marvel fan) was generally disappointed with the film. Conversely, Amy Andrews from the ever-excellent Oh That Film Blog loved it. I’m with Amy on this one, and greatly enjoyed it as a well-constructed action rollercoaster. The nearly two and a half hours sped by. By the way (and I took one for the team here) there is no “monkey” at the end of the film’s credit to hang on for.
Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) directs and knows the audience she is aiming to please. One can only imagine the empowering impact this film will have on young girls, crossing their wrists to ‘THAT’ music and, in their imagination, casting terrorists into the hell that they should be consigned to. In this week of yet more Isis atrocity in London, Wonder Woman is a role-model we could all stand and salute: “I believe in love” too.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated A Portable Shelter in Books
May 13, 2017
‘…there’s no other way to give you the truth except to hide it in a story and let you find your own way inside.’
‘…there’s no other way to give you the truth except to hide it in a story and let you find your own way inside.’
Kirsty Logan’s first collection of short stories, The Rental Heart and Other Fairytales, published by Salt in 2014, won the Polari First Book Prize in 2015. A Portable Shelter is her second collection. Set in a small cottage in the rural north coast of Scotland, Ruth and Liska are expecting their first child. The couple believe that their unborn baby will have a better chance of survival away from the harshness of suburban life. They make a pact with one another, that they will only ever tell their child the truth. Yet while Liska is asleep or Ruth is at work, each whispers secret stories to their unborn child. Delving into fantastical tales about people from their past and re-telling stories that span from generation to generation, the couple unfold the horrors of the real world. Whilst these tales, laced in myth and legend, and fattened with the magic of the imagination, demonstrate the art of oral storytelling, Logan reaches further to show the reader why storytelling is important.
While this book is primarily a collection of short stories, its novel like structure frames each story with a preceding monologue from either Ruth or Liska. The monologues offer delightful morsels of description that bring the harshness of Mother Nature into the safety of the couple’s bedroom, “right now our home is speaking to you. The walls creak their approval in the wind. The rain applauds on the roof. The lighthouse beam swoops, swoops, swoops. The tide breathes loud and slow like a giant. If you listen carefully, perhaps you can even hear the moon hum.” The pace of these sentences, combined with the delicacy of language demonstrates Logan’s skill at describing the sublime spirit of the natural world, which brings the narrative to life.
Most impressive though, is Logan’s poetic language and carefully crafted sentences which create the most beautiful imagery. In ‘Flinch,’ for example – James is a fisherman struggling with his identity, yet his affiliation with the land is locked into his first-person point of view where the reader gets to closely experience what he sees, “The sky is pinkish-grey like the insides of shells. Speckled bonxies wheel overhead. Seals loll on the rocks, fat as kings. The rising mist is cool and milky.” Any of these lines could easily be arranged into a poem and with sentences that are squeezed tight; they create a wonderful poetic rhythm. Logan uses this technique throughout her novel, demonstrating the precision and craft in her work. There are definite similarities in her writing style to fellow Scottish novelist and poet Jenni Fagan. Both authors use rich language, which is well crafted and smattered with vernacular. Furthermore, combining this with the reoccurring theme of identity, the oral storytelling tradition, landscape, folklore, and myth, it is clear to see why these authors contribute to the growing canon in Scottish literature.
This is a book that I will read over and over again because I know that in each reading, I will find something new. A Portable Shelter, I feel, deserves a place on my ‘keep’ book shelf.
A Portable Shelter, Kirsty Logan, London: Vintage, 2015
Kirsty Logan’s first collection of short stories, The Rental Heart and Other Fairytales, published by Salt in 2014, won the Polari First Book Prize in 2015. A Portable Shelter is her second collection. Set in a small cottage in the rural north coast of Scotland, Ruth and Liska are expecting their first child. The couple believe that their unborn baby will have a better chance of survival away from the harshness of suburban life. They make a pact with one another, that they will only ever tell their child the truth. Yet while Liska is asleep or Ruth is at work, each whispers secret stories to their unborn child. Delving into fantastical tales about people from their past and re-telling stories that span from generation to generation, the couple unfold the horrors of the real world. Whilst these tales, laced in myth and legend, and fattened with the magic of the imagination, demonstrate the art of oral storytelling, Logan reaches further to show the reader why storytelling is important.
While this book is primarily a collection of short stories, its novel like structure frames each story with a preceding monologue from either Ruth or Liska. The monologues offer delightful morsels of description that bring the harshness of Mother Nature into the safety of the couple’s bedroom, “right now our home is speaking to you. The walls creak their approval in the wind. The rain applauds on the roof. The lighthouse beam swoops, swoops, swoops. The tide breathes loud and slow like a giant. If you listen carefully, perhaps you can even hear the moon hum.” The pace of these sentences, combined with the delicacy of language demonstrates Logan’s skill at describing the sublime spirit of the natural world, which brings the narrative to life.
Most impressive though, is Logan’s poetic language and carefully crafted sentences which create the most beautiful imagery. In ‘Flinch,’ for example – James is a fisherman struggling with his identity, yet his affiliation with the land is locked into his first-person point of view where the reader gets to closely experience what he sees, “The sky is pinkish-grey like the insides of shells. Speckled bonxies wheel overhead. Seals loll on the rocks, fat as kings. The rising mist is cool and milky.” Any of these lines could easily be arranged into a poem and with sentences that are squeezed tight; they create a wonderful poetic rhythm. Logan uses this technique throughout her novel, demonstrating the precision and craft in her work. There are definite similarities in her writing style to fellow Scottish novelist and poet Jenni Fagan. Both authors use rich language, which is well crafted and smattered with vernacular. Furthermore, combining this with the reoccurring theme of identity, the oral storytelling tradition, landscape, folklore, and myth, it is clear to see why these authors contribute to the growing canon in Scottish literature.
This is a book that I will read over and over again because I know that in each reading, I will find something new. A Portable Shelter, I feel, deserves a place on my ‘keep’ book shelf.
A Portable Shelter, Kirsty Logan, London: Vintage, 2015