Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Getting A Life, Even If You're Dead (No Going Back, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Louise (64 KP) rated The School For Good and Evil in Books
Jul 2, 2018
After bingeing the Harry Potter series I wasn't ready to let go of the fantasy world, I needed more wizards,witches and fantastical beasts. I saw Regan@peruseproject haul and talk about this book and the premise had me hooked.
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Graduate (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Career Defining Turn by Bancroft
On the surface, THE GRADUATE is a story of a young college graduate who has an affair with an older woman. But look beneath the surface and this film becomes much, much more.
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Fractured Dream (The Dreamer Saga, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
In all honesty, Fractured Dream felt as though I was dragging a big sack of potatoes around and trying to find a place to put them... yet finding nowhere. And it's just bad when I take a chunk out of veggie chips during 2-3 hours of complete peace and quiet when I should have taken more chunk out of the book. Apparently, the veggie chips were more interesting, because I normally have no problems reading a 400-500+ paged book.
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
The book had an interesting take on Fairy tales and dreams, but the execution was poor. And there were LOTS of awkwardness.
<b>Dislikes aka Awkward101</b>
~ A few people watching two lovebirds having sex in the prologue. I mean, it wasn't exactly obvious at first, but when the words "I need to see that it's done. I need to know they've conceived" pops up, it's just creepy! If you don't think so, then imagine someone walking into your bedroom at the wrong time. Yep... it's awkward. Really awkward. Sorry might not even cut it.
~ Story yes, it's the main character's name. I'm not going to call her Bob so it makes sense seems to be carefree. She laughs a lot. But while she's carefree, she's sort of knowing as well. At least, that's how it is at the beginning. Later on Story seems all depressed and not confident that she could save the world from Brink.
~ Snow White and Sleep Beauty. These days, I'm done with these two being vampires in all those retellings I'm coming across. -_- Although what's different is an interesting thought: "What if the Real Worlds tastes in literature were somehow affecting the way Fairytales translated here?"
~ The romance between Story and Nicholas is completely unrealistic. They're staring at each other from the moment they meet in Tressla. First kiss? They pretty much make out. And nearly have sex. Haven't you guys heard me complain before about this already?
YA books are definitely growing up.
What's worse is there is a sex scene later. Not exactly graphic thankfully, but no thank you? *cringes away* When I said I was fine with romance, I seriously didn't mean go all out and do THAT.
~ The awkwardness doesn't end: a woman giving birth. Yeah... I'm <s>watching</s> reading about a woman giving birth. Goodness! Where am I? I think I need to change that review policy to middle grade and young adult crossovers only now! This is so not a manual about giving birth in the olden days.
~ Story has some sort of an attitude or aura I don't really like later on in the book. She basically expects all of her followers to listen to her as though she knows best. What kind of leader is that? That makes her as bad as the villain! Yes, everyone respects the leader. But shouldn't a leader listen to opinions as well, even when it's not a democracy? Don't monarchs listen to peasants complaining? Monarchy certainly isn't a democracy. Maybe one of her followers have a better idea.
<blockquote>I am the leader here. Does no one respect that position? Her eyes were lit with a golden fire. This is not a democracy.</blockquote>
<b>Likes</b>
~ Little Red Riding Hood isn't singular. She's a plural! One in each generation! Ever seen that in a fairy tale before?
<blockquote>But Grandma Red isnt the Little Red Riding Hood shes a Little Red Riding Hood. Each generation of their family has onea woman destined to fight her Wolf at some point in her lifetime.</blockquote>
~ Thumbelina makes an appearance, and they're usually in plants. So far, there's two types Red Rose and Morning Glory. The Red Rose Thumbelina makes a big appearance as she's Story's Thumbelina.
Speaking of Thumbelinas... I do enjoy Bliss' snark and attitude. Isn't she just adorable? She's tiny yet mighty!
<blockquote>Dont you dare make me look like a Briar Rose, all dramatic and sappy and full of themselves because Shakespeare wrote about them. I am a Red Rose, you hear me? I have a rep to protect. Do not make me run off with some damned prince. I really dont think I could stomach it.</blockquote>
~ The cover! So pretty... it's so magical and enchanting! Definitely fits the aspect of the book in a way.
Fractured Dream would probably be considered more of a happy read lots of reunions with Story and some of the Tresslans. But it has a lot of awkwardness I'd rather not read about... unless I'm reading Adult romance. Obviously, this is not an adult romance novel, because if it were, I wouldn't have requested it on Netgalley in the first place.
I'll be looking into the sequel though.
---------------------
Review copy provided by the publisher for review
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-fractured-dream-by-km-randall.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Go the Distance: A Twisted Tale in Books
Jun 17, 2021
What if Meg had to become a Greek God?
Following on immediately from the end of the much loved Hercules film, Jen Calonita is back with a twisted tale starring our favourite D.I.D: Damsel in Distress.
Now, I LOVE sarcasm and sass so Meg has always been a firm favourite of mine. I was thrilled when I heard she would finally be getting her own story and did Calonita disappoint? No she did not!
Go The Distance is told entirely from Meg’s point of view: immersing the reader immediately in her thoughts and feelings whilst ascending to Mount Olympus with Hercules. I loved how in tune Jen Calonita was with her protagonist, right from the first few pages: there is literally SO much pomp and circumstance surrounding Meg, she is stood on a cloud for goodness sake! But does that stop her doubting herself? Doubting the budding relationship with Herc? Not a chance!
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of twisted tale novels that Calonita quickly tanks our hopes of a happy ending (makes sense- we’re only in the first few pages) as Zeus refuses Hercules’ request to be with Meg on Earth: the lightning-wielding god and his wife have waited too long for their son to re-join them, to lose him this easily. However, Hera can see how happy this mortal makes her son and so makes Meg a once-in-a-lifetime offer, complete a hero’s quest in 10 days and stay with Herc on Mount Olympus as a god for eternity.
Obviously Meg accepts- it would be a short story if she passed this opportunity up- and embarks upon an adventure like no other. As well as having to navigate the underworld, negotiate with Hades and face her ex, Meg battles monsters, befriends Gods and learns her most important lesson: that love is a strength, not a weakness.
Joining Meg on her journey are characters we know and love, such as Phil, Pegasus and Hades. It would be so easy for Jen Calonita to play it safe with these iconic characters but I am pleased to say that these guys get their own little developments too: particularly Hades as we see the character of Persephone and her impact upon his life.
Calonita also introduces us to a host of new characters, two of which are pivotal to both the reader understanding how key events in her life have created this tough armour that Meg wears so well. These are Thea, Meg’s mother and Aegeus, the man who Meg gave up her soul for. Aegeus is a bit wet in my opinion (he’s no Wonder Boy!) but the relationship Calonita creates between Meg and Thea is something precious: the reader can see the struggles faced by both women and can immediately identify where Meg got her fiery nature from.
But of course our heroine is the one who shines in this twisted tale: Meg was already a brilliant character but Calonita opens her up a little bit more and manages to break down some of her walls: along her quest Meg almost embraces her vulnerability, she learns to trust and learns that it is not a weakness to ask for and accept help. After that her quest seems to become easier- which is saying a lot in the underworld!
I also really admired that Meg doesn’t go weak at the knees at the prospect of spending eternity with Hercules, in fact she isn’t sure she wants eternity, she just wants the chance to find out! This made the underlying love story real rather than fairytale. Herc and Meg argue, they say things they regret but ultimately, they show up for each other and that’s what is important in the end.
I have seen other reviewers slating the character of Meg, saying that she is too rash and hot-headed in this twisted tale and bears little resemblance to the animated character we love. I have to say I completely disagree with these views: yes, as her quest nears its deadline then Meg becomes increasingly rash but hello, the girl gave up her soul to Hades! You can’t tell me she doesn’t have previous form for diving head-first into a situation?!
Go The Distance is an adorable novel about embracing your vulnerability and trusting those who want to help you. It teaches us that independence does not necessarily mean facing everything alone, love does not necessarily come from one stand-out moment and that it is never too late to forgive. This twisted tale is not as dark as other retellings in the series but Jen Calonita is an expert in middle-grade literature and so this is not a surprise nor a criticism.
“Two thumbs, way way up for our leading lady!”
Following on immediately from the end of the much loved Hercules film, Jen Calonita is back with a twisted tale starring our favourite D.I.D: Damsel in Distress.
Now, I LOVE sarcasm and sass so Meg has always been a firm favourite of mine. I was thrilled when I heard she would finally be getting her own story and did Calonita disappoint? No she did not!
Go The Distance is told entirely from Meg’s point of view: immersing the reader immediately in her thoughts and feelings whilst ascending to Mount Olympus with Hercules. I loved how in tune Jen Calonita was with her protagonist, right from the first few pages: there is literally SO much pomp and circumstance surrounding Meg, she is stood on a cloud for goodness sake! But does that stop her doubting herself? Doubting the budding relationship with Herc? Not a chance!
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of twisted tale novels that Calonita quickly tanks our hopes of a happy ending (makes sense- we’re only in the first few pages) as Zeus refuses Hercules’ request to be with Meg on Earth: the lightning-wielding god and his wife have waited too long for their son to re-join them, to lose him this easily. However, Hera can see how happy this mortal makes her son and so makes Meg a once-in-a-lifetime offer, complete a hero’s quest in 10 days and stay with Herc on Mount Olympus as a god for eternity.
Obviously Meg accepts- it would be a short story if she passed this opportunity up- and embarks upon an adventure like no other. As well as having to navigate the underworld, negotiate with Hades and face her ex, Meg battles monsters, befriends Gods and learns her most important lesson: that love is a strength, not a weakness.
Joining Meg on her journey are characters we know and love, such as Phil, Pegasus and Hades. It would be so easy for Jen Calonita to play it safe with these iconic characters but I am pleased to say that these guys get their own little developments too: particularly Hades as we see the character of Persephone and her impact upon his life.
Calonita also introduces us to a host of new characters, two of which are pivotal to both the reader understanding how key events in her life have created this tough armour that Meg wears so well. These are Thea, Meg’s mother and Aegeus, the man who Meg gave up her soul for. Aegeus is a bit wet in my opinion (he’s no Wonder Boy!) but the relationship Calonita creates between Meg and Thea is something precious: the reader can see the struggles faced by both women and can immediately identify where Meg got her fiery nature from.
But of course our heroine is the one who shines in this twisted tale: Meg was already a brilliant character but Calonita opens her up a little bit more and manages to break down some of her walls: along her quest Meg almost embraces her vulnerability, she learns to trust and learns that it is not a weakness to ask for and accept help. After that her quest seems to become easier- which is saying a lot in the underworld!
I also really admired that Meg doesn’t go weak at the knees at the prospect of spending eternity with Hercules, in fact she isn’t sure she wants eternity, she just wants the chance to find out! This made the underlying love story real rather than fairytale. Herc and Meg argue, they say things they regret but ultimately, they show up for each other and that’s what is important in the end.
I have seen other reviewers slating the character of Meg, saying that she is too rash and hot-headed in this twisted tale and bears little resemblance to the animated character we love. I have to say I completely disagree with these views: yes, as her quest nears its deadline then Meg becomes increasingly rash but hello, the girl gave up her soul to Hades! You can’t tell me she doesn’t have previous form for diving head-first into a situation?!
Go The Distance is an adorable novel about embracing your vulnerability and trusting those who want to help you. It teaches us that independence does not necessarily mean facing everything alone, love does not necessarily come from one stand-out moment and that it is never too late to forgive. This twisted tale is not as dark as other retellings in the series but Jen Calonita is an expert in middle-grade literature and so this is not a surprise nor a criticism.
“Two thumbs, way way up for our leading lady!”
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2019
Caught in a bad Roma
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been a long while since I watched a film deserving of a truly, harshly negative review. I have gotten so close so many times, and I’ll be damned if Netflix hadn’t gotten close to earning that with the fridge-logic that ruined Bird Box. Even Bird Box, though, feels enjoyable in retrospect compared to another Netflix exclusive: Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Revived in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I must be the sad opposite corner of book club. NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE LOVED REVIVED AND I DIDN'T.
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Rebel Rose (The Queen's Council #1) in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Set against the backdrop of revolutionary France, ‘Rebel Rose’ continues the story of Beauty and the Beast after the curse is broken. Belle and her Prince now have to find a way to navigate married life, rank, politics and explain a 10-year absence from the French Court of Versailles.
Controversially, Emma Theriault baits the hardcore Disney fans straight out of the gates by naming her Prince Lio (Lio, Lion, beast, gettit?) rather than Adam. In the grand scheme of things this can easily be forgiven but it still seems a strange choice. Maybe Adam was too English for a French Prince?
However, the use of first person perspective ensures that our protagonist remains firmly in Belle. Belle has refused the title of Princess upon marriage in order to stay true to her roots but is constantly hiding her true self: even referring to a trip around Europe as “one last adventure before the walls of the castle close around her”. When Belle witnesses the revolutionary sparks within the city this divides her further: how can she be part of the nobility these people rally against and an avid “commoner” at the same time?
In truth, Belle as a character divided me as well. Belle has always been my favourite Disney Princess (possibly to do with that massive library) and, in the most part, I feel Theriault wrote her well and stayed true to the character. However, in the early pages Belle felt very spoilt and selfish to me: preferring to disguise herself and explore Paris rather than support Lio in explaining his decade-long disappearing act to King Louis.
I was intrigued to know what my fellow reviewers thought and was unsurprised to see a LOT of criticism of our heroine, her shunning of the title of Princess and her lack of enthusiasm to be a leader. However, I almost felt that this made the story more realistic. Just because she broke a curse and married a Prince doesn’t mean she can automatically feel ready and comfortable leading a kingdom! Maybe she just has a fondness for hairy men?
Belle’s reluctance and tentativeness to lead also fed very nicely into her passion to improve the lives of the residents of the kingdom of Aveyon. This is common sense to her and therefore doesn’t feel like ruling. Indeed, it is not seen by any of the main characters as ruling but in the end it saves them all from a revolution of their own.
I would have liked Lio to be a little bit more developed than he was. The fact that he harboured an element of PTSD from the curse was really interesting but not explored any further than his nightmares and aversion towards roses. There was undoubtedly chemistry between him and Belle but it was just a bit lacklustre in my opinion. This may be due to his absence for a lot of the book but I felt the reader could have loved him a lot more than we did.
Lio’s cousin Bastien is the slimy villain of the tale and I would have liked a bit more mystery and suspense within his character. I appreciated that Belle didn’t like him initially as he was a powdered, wig wearing noble who was close to King Louis, basically as far away from Belle as possible. Bastien is also quite snobby towards Belle in his earliest chapters so you can’t blame her for disliking him.
However, by using language to plainly show that Belle distrusts her husband’s cousin, Theriault instantly creates a flashing neon “villain” sign above his head. This would have been fine in a middle-grade book but within YA I think the reader could have been afforded to be misled a couple of times before uncovering Bastien’s real intentions.
**This section contains spoilers**
I also believe that Bastien’s eventual story arc was a tad unbelievable. At first I thought his revolutionary sympathies and further plots with various goons was a ruse in order to gain the throne for himself, particularly once he had established himself firmly with the advisory. Emma Theriault’s decision to keep Bastien true to the revolution seemed rushed, and a bit odd to be honest. This is a noble who lives in the lap of luxury and attends to King Louis himself but who then turns on his own kind after basically forcing the kingdom of Aveyon to break away from France? It didn’t seem plausible to me.
Rebel Rose is an easy to read continuation of one of our favourite Disney tales. It reintroduces us to old favourites such as Mrs Potts and Lumiere as well as introducing new characters such as Marguerite and Bastien. Belle’s journey to staying true to herself and following her gut is one anyone can empathise with and her discovery that she does not have to appease to outsider’s expectations will never cease to be important.
The magic contained within this novel is a perfect springboard for the rest of the novels within the Queen’s Council series: the next one is based on Mulan and will be written by Livia Blackburne before Jasmine’s story by Alexandra Monir follows in 2022. The majority of the action within this novel does take place towards the end so it can be a little slow paced and politics focused but I enjoyed seeing Belle and Lio break free of their fairytale life and become a little more real.
Although this isn’t my favourite Disney novel, I do appreciate the break away from the retelling genre and the move towards bringing these well-known characters into the real world. For a debut novel I think Emma Theriault should be immensely proud: the research for the historical context alone must have been a mission!
Controversially, Emma Theriault baits the hardcore Disney fans straight out of the gates by naming her Prince Lio (Lio, Lion, beast, gettit?) rather than Adam. In the grand scheme of things this can easily be forgiven but it still seems a strange choice. Maybe Adam was too English for a French Prince?
However, the use of first person perspective ensures that our protagonist remains firmly in Belle. Belle has refused the title of Princess upon marriage in order to stay true to her roots but is constantly hiding her true self: even referring to a trip around Europe as “one last adventure before the walls of the castle close around her”. When Belle witnesses the revolutionary sparks within the city this divides her further: how can she be part of the nobility these people rally against and an avid “commoner” at the same time?
In truth, Belle as a character divided me as well. Belle has always been my favourite Disney Princess (possibly to do with that massive library) and, in the most part, I feel Theriault wrote her well and stayed true to the character. However, in the early pages Belle felt very spoilt and selfish to me: preferring to disguise herself and explore Paris rather than support Lio in explaining his decade-long disappearing act to King Louis.
I was intrigued to know what my fellow reviewers thought and was unsurprised to see a LOT of criticism of our heroine, her shunning of the title of Princess and her lack of enthusiasm to be a leader. However, I almost felt that this made the story more realistic. Just because she broke a curse and married a Prince doesn’t mean she can automatically feel ready and comfortable leading a kingdom! Maybe she just has a fondness for hairy men?
Belle’s reluctance and tentativeness to lead also fed very nicely into her passion to improve the lives of the residents of the kingdom of Aveyon. This is common sense to her and therefore doesn’t feel like ruling. Indeed, it is not seen by any of the main characters as ruling but in the end it saves them all from a revolution of their own.
I would have liked Lio to be a little bit more developed than he was. The fact that he harboured an element of PTSD from the curse was really interesting but not explored any further than his nightmares and aversion towards roses. There was undoubtedly chemistry between him and Belle but it was just a bit lacklustre in my opinion. This may be due to his absence for a lot of the book but I felt the reader could have loved him a lot more than we did.
Lio’s cousin Bastien is the slimy villain of the tale and I would have liked a bit more mystery and suspense within his character. I appreciated that Belle didn’t like him initially as he was a powdered, wig wearing noble who was close to King Louis, basically as far away from Belle as possible. Bastien is also quite snobby towards Belle in his earliest chapters so you can’t blame her for disliking him.
However, by using language to plainly show that Belle distrusts her husband’s cousin, Theriault instantly creates a flashing neon “villain” sign above his head. This would have been fine in a middle-grade book but within YA I think the reader could have been afforded to be misled a couple of times before uncovering Bastien’s real intentions.
**This section contains spoilers**
I also believe that Bastien’s eventual story arc was a tad unbelievable. At first I thought his revolutionary sympathies and further plots with various goons was a ruse in order to gain the throne for himself, particularly once he had established himself firmly with the advisory. Emma Theriault’s decision to keep Bastien true to the revolution seemed rushed, and a bit odd to be honest. This is a noble who lives in the lap of luxury and attends to King Louis himself but who then turns on his own kind after basically forcing the kingdom of Aveyon to break away from France? It didn’t seem plausible to me.
Rebel Rose is an easy to read continuation of one of our favourite Disney tales. It reintroduces us to old favourites such as Mrs Potts and Lumiere as well as introducing new characters such as Marguerite and Bastien. Belle’s journey to staying true to herself and following her gut is one anyone can empathise with and her discovery that she does not have to appease to outsider’s expectations will never cease to be important.
The magic contained within this novel is a perfect springboard for the rest of the novels within the Queen’s Council series: the next one is based on Mulan and will be written by Livia Blackburne before Jasmine’s story by Alexandra Monir follows in 2022. The majority of the action within this novel does take place towards the end so it can be a little slow paced and politics focused but I enjoyed seeing Belle and Lio break free of their fairytale life and become a little more real.
Although this isn’t my favourite Disney novel, I do appreciate the break away from the retelling genre and the move towards bringing these well-known characters into the real world. For a debut novel I think Emma Theriault should be immensely proud: the research for the historical context alone must have been a mission!
Katie (868 KP) Jul 4, 2018
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) Jul 4, 2018