Search
Search results
The Wonder Weeks - Milestones
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Sibling app to the Number one best sold Parenting app: The Wonder Weeks The Wonder Weeks Milestone...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Go Back to China (2020) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Couldn't Hold My Interest
I’m always on the lookout for hidden gems, especially when it comes to films starring minorities. I was hoping to find that in Go Back to China but wasn’t as impressed as I thought it would be. In the movie, a woman living in the states is forced to go to China to work for her father in his toy factory after he cuts off her trust fund.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Second Glance
7.6
Rate It
Book
When odd, supernatural events plague the town of Comtosook, a ghost hunter is hired by the developer...
Seriously Messed Up
“Thriller of the year” according to Observer; it makes you wonder what all the other thrillers were like. Gone Girl is a contemporary crime thriller by American author Gillian Flynn. Likable “Cool Girl” Amy Dunne is missing; the police think her husband has something to do with it, but what really happened?
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, The Illusion. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is swearing. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on Goodreads certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, The Illusion. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is swearing. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on Goodreads certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
“Thriller of the year” according to <i>Observer</i>; it makes you wonder what all the other thrillers were like. <i>Gone Girl</i> is a contemporary crime thriller by American author Gillian Flynn. Likable “Cool Girl” Amy Dunne is missing; the police think her husband has something to do with it, but what really happened?
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, <i>The Illusion</i>. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is <i>swearing</i>. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on <i>Goodreads</i> certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Flynn begins the novel with an epigraph: “Love is the world’s infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even, are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood.” – Tony Kushner, <i>The Illusion</i>. This implies that love and hate, and perhaps murder, will be the main issues within the novel. It hints that relationships may not be all that they first appear, which becomes evident as you read deeper into the book.
Split into three parts, the first section alternates between a first person account from Nick Dunne, the husband, of what is occurring on the day in which Amy disappears and the following days when both he and the police are attempting to determine the truth about what has happened and trying to find out where Amy is; and diary entries from Amy dating as far back as 2005.
To begin with I did not think much of the story and did not particularly like Amy, despite her being portrayed as a likable character; however I soon got into the story siding with Nick and wanting him to be innocent even though evidence and suspicion were mounting against him.
Initially I assumed that the truth would not be revealed until the end of the story rather than on the first page of part two. For the remainder of the book Nick’s narrative remains the same, progressing from where it left off at the end of part one; whereas Amy, instead of diary entries, she is telling the reader the truth about what happened on the 5th July – the day she went missing – and the subsequent days and weeks. At this point I became a bit bored with the story; as the reader we know the truth and it is frustrating that the police are getting it wrong. However part three contained more suspense than the rest of the novel.
So, why only three stars? As I already mentioned it did not seem that great at the beginning and to be honest I did not feel satisfied with the ending either. One of the main things that bothered me was the use of swear words. I understand that many people swear and so it is inevitable that these words would end up in novels; however in my opinion there is swearing and then there is <i>swearing</i>. This was beginning to border on the latter. Yes some of the characters were angry but I thought the use of expletives was slightly overdone.
Despite these misgivings it was a well-written piece of fiction that I think others may enjoy – the ratings on <i>Goodreads</i> certainly suggest that; but for me it was not anything special.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Between the Sunset and the Sea: A View of 16 British Mountains
Book
'I watched the mirror for a last view, for now, of the frozen mountains of Glen Coe. As the road...
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Jimmy Ray Davis (0 KP) created a post
Mar 4, 2018
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Jul 9, 2017
Highly Intelligent Characters (4 more)
A Fresh Feel to Sci Fi Horror
Highly Intelligent Alien Species with an Unconventional Look
Fast Pace
1950s Noir Ending
Holy S**t!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Many people didn't like this movie, but I freaking loved it! Here's why: The most popular character kicks the bucket first: This for me was a huge deal, you always expect the highest billing actor to be the main character but no, first to die, it was excellent because it gave a tone to the movie that absolutely anything could happen. Another reason to love it: The pure claustrophobia you are trapped in a metal tube in the middle of the vacuum of space with a highly intelligent killer alien, some people may say it's already been done which yes it has but the pace of the movie kept it interesting, in the first half of the movie the majority of the characters are either injured or dead, you barely have time to process each death before someone else is gone, it's exciting. The occasional glimmer of hope: Every time you think they are going to make it something else goes wrong. You know a regular horror you usually spend half the time yelling at the characters for being utter morons, but this movie, these people are highly intelligent and do everything possible to stop the alien without being utterly dumb, it's truly chilling to watch. The ending was a work of art: You get your hopes built up only to realise at the last possible second that everything has gone to s**t and the world is doomed. It was a beautiful 1950s noir film feel which was perfectly executed. No happy ending and endless speculations as to what would happen to the human race. Will it reproduce? How quickly? Just how evolved will it get with endless water and food supplies? Will conventional weapons work on it or will humanity be helpless? A perfect mix of science fiction, thriller, and horror. Will definitely watch again!