Search
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Everything You Want Me to Be in Books
May 10, 2018
Henrietta 'Hattie' Hoffman is starting her senior year in high school. She lives in a small farming town and Minnesota and knows this is not the place for her. She has big hopes and dreams and she will stop at nothing to achieve them, even if it means deceiving others. But when Hattie turns up dead after opening night of Macbeth, there are all kinds of speculations as to why this could have happened and who could have done it. Told from the perspective of Hattie; Dell, the Chief of Police and; Peter the new English teacher. We are taken on a journey from the months leading up to Hattie's death to the months following it. Who killed Hattie and why?
From the very beginning of the book you can see that there is going to be a twist to this case. Everything is not going to be so easily spelled out for you. Just when you think you know who did it, you will find that you are wrong. I was wrong from the beginning. When it got down to the confession part I was jumping for joy because I had nailed the killer, but later I found out it was not so.
This is the first book I have read by Mindy Mejia. If her other books are similar to this, I will be reading them all.
To put it lightly, Hattie is a sociopath. Just at the title suggests she is everything everyone else wants her to be, but no one really knows her at all. She lies to her parents and her friends, being the good student, the good daughter, the loyal girlfriend, but Hattie has secrets. The first thing that shocked me about this book was not that Hattie had an affair with her high school teacher, it was how she laid out her plans to fool the whole town into believing she was the perfect girl next door. No one could have imagined what she had in store in her own mind.
I recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a twisty tale.
From the very beginning of the book you can see that there is going to be a twist to this case. Everything is not going to be so easily spelled out for you. Just when you think you know who did it, you will find that you are wrong. I was wrong from the beginning. When it got down to the confession part I was jumping for joy because I had nailed the killer, but later I found out it was not so.
This is the first book I have read by Mindy Mejia. If her other books are similar to this, I will be reading them all.
To put it lightly, Hattie is a sociopath. Just at the title suggests she is everything everyone else wants her to be, but no one really knows her at all. She lies to her parents and her friends, being the good student, the good daughter, the loyal girlfriend, but Hattie has secrets. The first thing that shocked me about this book was not that Hattie had an affair with her high school teacher, it was how she laid out her plans to fool the whole town into believing she was the perfect girl next door. No one could have imagined what she had in store in her own mind.
I recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a twisty tale.
Speaking the Speech
Book
Why does Shakespeare write in the way he does? And how can actors and directors get the most out of...
African Theatre: China, India & the Eastern World: Volume 15
Martin Banham, James Gibbs and Femi Osofisan
1.0
Rate It
Book
China is the main focus of this volume, and articles consider the way it is using "soft power" in...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated A Haunting In Cawdor (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The psychological thriller is another genre that seems to have taken a ‘back seat’ to the big budget action films, horror, and comedies in recent years. Or if there were any good psychological thrillers to hit the theater or the internet I either didn’t hear about them or they didn’t really make much of an impact. Personally when I think of that genre the first name to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcook. I’m sure if I sat down and thought about it, I could think of a movie that falls into that category I’ve seen since then but I don’t have that kind of time. What I do have time for is to tell you about a movie that is certainly a step in the right direction.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Loving Justice, Living Shakespeare
Book
In thinking about Justice, we ignore Love to our peril. Loving Justice, Living Shakespeare asks why...
Dana (24 KP) rated Wyrd Sisters (Discworld, #6; Witches #2) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I am giving this book a 3.5 stars, so I will explain why later on in the review. Again, as always, there will most likely be spoilers, so read at your own peril.
This was my very first Terry Pratchett book! My friend Grace let me borrow her copy of the book and said I would probably like it because Macbeth is one of my all-time favorite Shakespearean plays!
I enjoyed this book. Don't let the 3.5 star review throw you.
I liked how the plot moved along fairly quickly and everything was interconnected. That was something I don't really see too often in novels, so it was great to experience that. I am wondering how all of the other twenty-seven or so books will connect together, but I can't say that I will be reading them too soon. I have far too many other books I need to read right now, but maybe next year!
The characters were pretty fun as well. I loved the three witches, they were so fun and snippy! All the sarcasm and arguments made them even more lovable, and we all know that I love me a good witch character. I think I loved Margat the most out of the three witches because she was so "modern"' as opposed to Nanny and Granny. Nanny, however, is such a spitfire and I love how violent she can get in her temper.
I do have to say, however, that the story line did get kinda convoluted at times which is one of the reasons I am giving it a lower rating. The timeline, while it was supposed to go a bit wonky, had me all turned around at times.
I also wasn't a big fan of there not being any chapter breaks. While there were some line breaks to show the shift in the narrator, it wasn't enough to really show breaks in what was happening in the story. I am not saying that this is always a bad thing, not having chapter breaks, but I, personally, appreciate them.
The world was very well built, though the rules of the world were not fully explained. I loved all of the little footnotes and interjections from the narrator. They made the time pass so much more quickly.
Overall, it was a pretty good book. It took some getting used to the writing style and the world itself, but I enjoyed it. I am excited to see what comes next in the series!
This was my very first Terry Pratchett book! My friend Grace let me borrow her copy of the book and said I would probably like it because Macbeth is one of my all-time favorite Shakespearean plays!
I enjoyed this book. Don't let the 3.5 star review throw you.
I liked how the plot moved along fairly quickly and everything was interconnected. That was something I don't really see too often in novels, so it was great to experience that. I am wondering how all of the other twenty-seven or so books will connect together, but I can't say that I will be reading them too soon. I have far too many other books I need to read right now, but maybe next year!
The characters were pretty fun as well. I loved the three witches, they were so fun and snippy! All the sarcasm and arguments made them even more lovable, and we all know that I love me a good witch character. I think I loved Margat the most out of the three witches because she was so "modern"' as opposed to Nanny and Granny. Nanny, however, is such a spitfire and I love how violent she can get in her temper.
I do have to say, however, that the story line did get kinda convoluted at times which is one of the reasons I am giving it a lower rating. The timeline, while it was supposed to go a bit wonky, had me all turned around at times.
I also wasn't a big fan of there not being any chapter breaks. While there were some line breaks to show the shift in the narrator, it wasn't enough to really show breaks in what was happening in the story. I am not saying that this is always a bad thing, not having chapter breaks, but I, personally, appreciate them.
The world was very well built, though the rules of the world were not fully explained. I loved all of the little footnotes and interjections from the narrator. They made the time pass so much more quickly.
Overall, it was a pretty good book. It took some getting used to the writing style and the world itself, but I enjoyed it. I am excited to see what comes next in the series!
Juliette Jackson recommended track Auto Neutron by The Fat White Family in Champagne Holocaust by The Fat White Family in Music (curated)
7.0
Album
Favorite
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Three Hours in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-32.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Three hours is 180 minutes or 10,800 seconds.
It is a morning’s lessons, a dress rehearsal of Macbeth, a snowy trek through the woods.
It’s an eternity waiting for news. Or a countdown to something terrible.
It is 180 minutes to discover who you will die for and what men will kill for.</i></b>
I am glad I got the chance to be part of the blog tour for Three Hours by Rosamund Lupton. I was reading this book while I was on a plane, travelling to Macedonia, and it was a great adventure all the way through. In all honesty, I enjoyed it a lot, but it didn’t make my favourites list.
A school is under a siege and the headmaster has been shot. The story is being told from the point of view of everyone involved – the students, the teachers, the worried parents, the investigators, even the bad guys… Different people are hiding in different places in the school, all hoping this is just a dream.
During the book, we follow a few story lines:
*Hannah, the teenage girl who is in love for the first time, trying to help the wounded headmaster.
*Rafi and his younger brother Basi, Syrian refugees, still suffering from PTSD.
*The parents that are gathered together, desperate for news that their children are safe.
*The police psychologist and investigators, who are trying to identify the gunmen.
*The students hiding in the school theatre, who rely on a Shakespeare play to calm themselves.
As the chapters go through, the time passes and we get a better glimpse of the whole picture, and the story behind the whole attack of the school. It is very nicely written and amazingly put together.
The ending was unpredictable.
I loved the ending. Even though I had a lot of guesses, and I desperately tried to convince myself that the person responsible couldn’t possibly be the guilty one, the book proved me wrong in the most unpredictable way possible. The book’s ending is the ending you have been waiting for in a thriller for a very long time, and I was quite pleased for a few days after reading it.
Throughout the book, you will get hundreds of small clues that you won’t even notice, and in the end it will all make sense. I may have to read this book again, just to enjoy all those little hidden clues throughout the way and cherish them for the amazing clues they were. Also, to simply mock my inability to spot them as well.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-32.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Three hours is 180 minutes or 10,800 seconds.
It is a morning’s lessons, a dress rehearsal of Macbeth, a snowy trek through the woods.
It’s an eternity waiting for news. Or a countdown to something terrible.
It is 180 minutes to discover who you will die for and what men will kill for.</i></b>
I am glad I got the chance to be part of the blog tour for Three Hours by Rosamund Lupton. I was reading this book while I was on a plane, travelling to Macedonia, and it was a great adventure all the way through. In all honesty, I enjoyed it a lot, but it didn’t make my favourites list.
A school is under a siege and the headmaster has been shot. The story is being told from the point of view of everyone involved – the students, the teachers, the worried parents, the investigators, even the bad guys… Different people are hiding in different places in the school, all hoping this is just a dream.
During the book, we follow a few story lines:
*Hannah, the teenage girl who is in love for the first time, trying to help the wounded headmaster.
*Rafi and his younger brother Basi, Syrian refugees, still suffering from PTSD.
*The parents that are gathered together, desperate for news that their children are safe.
*The police psychologist and investigators, who are trying to identify the gunmen.
*The students hiding in the school theatre, who rely on a Shakespeare play to calm themselves.
As the chapters go through, the time passes and we get a better glimpse of the whole picture, and the story behind the whole attack of the school. It is very nicely written and amazingly put together.
The ending was unpredictable.
I loved the ending. Even though I had a lot of guesses, and I desperately tried to convince myself that the person responsible couldn’t possibly be the guilty one, the book proved me wrong in the most unpredictable way possible. The book’s ending is the ending you have been waiting for in a thriller for a very long time, and I was quite pleased for a few days after reading it.
Throughout the book, you will get hundreds of small clues that you won’t even notice, and in the end it will all make sense. I may have to read this book again, just to enjoy all those little hidden clues throughout the way and cherish them for the amazing clues they were. Also, to simply mock my inability to spot them as well.
Dana (24 KP) rated The Tempest in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this play for my Shakespeare class in college and it was the first time I had ever read it.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…