Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 8, 2022
It's no secret that since the original and beloved Predator hit cinemas back in 1987, the franchise has seen a steady decline in quality, with each subsequent entry somehow managing to be less palatable than the one before. Not even IP crossovers could save it (although I'm still holding out hope for an Archie Vs Predator adaption someday.) It's a series that had been in dire need of a shake up for a long time, and that's exactly what Prey is. It swaps the modern settings we're used to, placing the action in the Comanche Nation in the early 1700s, it doubles down on the horror elements that have always bubbled beneath the surface, and most importantly, gives us the best and most memorable protagonist yet.
Naru, played by a truly fantastic Amber Midthunder, is a character who has something to prove. She falls down but doesn't accept defeat. She's relatable, determined, and ultimately, a perfect match for her enemy. One wonders who the prey that the title refers to truly is in this scenario. As such, the narrative plays out as a genuinely tense cat-and-mouse game between two abled warriors, both on the hunt, both trying to survive, and it's a joy to watch unfold.
The first third is a bit of a slow burn, allowing the audience to acclimate to the setting and culture. It gives everything a chance to breathe, and basks in some stunning vistas and beautiful cinematography. The vast majority of Prey was filmed on location in the Stoney Nakoda Nation in Canada. This gives the overall aesthetic a feeling of authenticity and wonder. The somewhat tepid pacing of the first third never gets boring, and remains engaging until things really kick off.
The first encounter the predator has with the human characters marks the start of something special, and from here on, the pedal is to the floor until the credits roll. The action scenes are as thrilling as they are brutal. This predator in particular feels more dangerous and ruthless than before, making minced meat of it's victims. The gore is impactful and the kills are creative. Some great sound editing ensures that even when the camera cuts away now and again, the violence is still felt in full. This is all complimented by the design of the predator. It's mask is more primitive than what we've seen in the past, meaning that even with all of it's high tech gadgets, the predator doesn't feel out of place. Everything climaxes in a hugely entertaining finale that would make Dutch proud. There are moments where Prey apes the original a bit, but it's all executed well, and never feels like it's grasping at nostalgic straws like some of the later sequels have done.
It's clear that there an abundance of positives exuded by Prey, a prequel that no one was chomping at the bit for, but a film that absolutely blows it's predecessors out of the water. Dan Trachtenberg has proven that he can step into a franchise and give us something new before with 10 Cloverfield Lane, and this just cements that claim. Prey is a well realised, and well put together project that is arguably the best entry in the entire Predator franchise, and one can only hope that any future installments are handled in the same way.
Naru, played by a truly fantastic Amber Midthunder, is a character who has something to prove. She falls down but doesn't accept defeat. She's relatable, determined, and ultimately, a perfect match for her enemy. One wonders who the prey that the title refers to truly is in this scenario. As such, the narrative plays out as a genuinely tense cat-and-mouse game between two abled warriors, both on the hunt, both trying to survive, and it's a joy to watch unfold.
The first third is a bit of a slow burn, allowing the audience to acclimate to the setting and culture. It gives everything a chance to breathe, and basks in some stunning vistas and beautiful cinematography. The vast majority of Prey was filmed on location in the Stoney Nakoda Nation in Canada. This gives the overall aesthetic a feeling of authenticity and wonder. The somewhat tepid pacing of the first third never gets boring, and remains engaging until things really kick off.
The first encounter the predator has with the human characters marks the start of something special, and from here on, the pedal is to the floor until the credits roll. The action scenes are as thrilling as they are brutal. This predator in particular feels more dangerous and ruthless than before, making minced meat of it's victims. The gore is impactful and the kills are creative. Some great sound editing ensures that even when the camera cuts away now and again, the violence is still felt in full. This is all complimented by the design of the predator. It's mask is more primitive than what we've seen in the past, meaning that even with all of it's high tech gadgets, the predator doesn't feel out of place. Everything climaxes in a hugely entertaining finale that would make Dutch proud. There are moments where Prey apes the original a bit, but it's all executed well, and never feels like it's grasping at nostalgic straws like some of the later sequels have done.
It's clear that there an abundance of positives exuded by Prey, a prequel that no one was chomping at the bit for, but a film that absolutely blows it's predecessors out of the water. Dan Trachtenberg has proven that he can step into a franchise and give us something new before with 10 Cloverfield Lane, and this just cements that claim. Prey is a well realised, and well put together project that is arguably the best entry in the entire Predator franchise, and one can only hope that any future installments are handled in the same way.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 12, 2022
It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since “Scream” premiered and in doing so; brought new life into the slasher genre which had become stale due to an abundance of direct to DVD and cable releases combined with many uninspired and stale theatrical releases.
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022) in Movies
Dec 31, 2022
Not "just" a Murder Mystery
Move over, James Bond, Daniel Craig has another series to star in.
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
An Explosive and Provocative Journey
Few films have managed to spark as much debate and cultural impact as David Fincher’s Fight Club. Released in 1999, this dark and audacious psychological thriller quickly evolved from a divisive box office release to a bona fide cult classic. Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, Fight Club is more than just a movie—it’s an exploration of identity, consumerism, and the hidden chaos lurking within us all. Fincher’s meticulous direction, coupled with outstanding performances by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, makes Fight Club a visceral and thought-provoking cinematic ride that lingers long after the credits roll.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
pheebs (3 KP) rated Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda in Books
Nov 23, 2017
The plot is progressive and thoroughly entertaining. (1 more)
The main character is a big fan of musical theatre, stars in Oliver (a play that I love)
Hands down the best biscuit is an oreo
Synopsis:Simon Spier is sixteen and trying to work out who he is – and what hes looking for. But when one of his emails to the very distracting blue falls into the wrong hands, things get all kinds of complicated. Because for Simon, falling for Blue is a big deal.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Robot in the Garden in Books
May 25, 2017
So Sweet
This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
A Robot in the Garden is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film Short Circuit (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of A Robot in the Garden in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; A Robot in the Garden is no War of the Worlds or Doctor Who type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
A Robot in the Garden is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film Short Circuit (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of A Robot in the Garden in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; A Robot in the Garden is no War of the Worlds or Doctor Who type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Station Eleven in Books
May 30, 2017
Horrifyingly Plausible
This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between Station Eleven and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled Station Eleven.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of King Lear. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of King Lear, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two Station Eleven comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with Station Eleven is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, Station Eleven is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between Station Eleven and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled Station Eleven.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of King Lear. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of King Lear, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two Station Eleven comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with Station Eleven is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, Station Eleven is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Valley of the Moon in Books
Sep 5, 2017
New Time Traveler's Wife
received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
For fans of The Time Traveler’s Wife (Niffenegger, 2003) this captivating story by Melanie Gideon is an alluring, spellbinding work of fiction about loving, being loved and finding somewhere you belong. With a touch of time travel in an otherwise typical reality, Valley of the Moon will excite, enrapture and touch readers’ hearts.
It is difficult to give a synoptic review without giving too much of the plot away. In short, the book contains the two lives of complete strangers who meet under extremely unlikely circumstances. It is 1975 and Lux Lysander is struggling to make ends meet as a single mother in San Francisco. Estranged from her parents, Benno has become her life; Lux would do anything for him. The other half of the story begins in 1906 in the Californian Sonoma Valley. Joseph has achieved his dream of creating an Edenic community where races and classes can live in harmony. Greengage is a self-sufficient society where everyone is seen as equal, however, something happens to shake up the peace – literally. A huge earthquake mysteriously leaves the valley unharmed but completely surrounded by a deadly fog. No one can leave and no one can enter, that is until Lux does.
Until the two characters’ lives collide, the narrative is fairly typical, but it quickly takes on a theme that most minds would attempt to debunk. Through a wall of fog, Lux can pass between 1975 and 1906, whereas Joseph and his friends can only stay in their own timeline. Lux begins to live a double life: one with her son Benno and one with the antiquated lifestyle of the Greengage community. Unfortunately, it is only possible to pass through the fog on a fall moon, and not necessarily every month.
Lux’s modern appearance and colloquialisms baffle the community but she soon finds herself a place amongst the inhabitants. For a while, Lux is able to keep her two lives separate, but one slip up causes her to temporarily lose the love and trust of her only son. Torn between her own flesh and blood and the only place she feels she belongs, Lux has to decide how far she would go for the people she loves.
One of the key themes of the novel is relationship. Although romance develops toward the latter stages of the story, the majority is focused on familial love and love between friends. Lux and Benno’s relationship is particularly important, especially when their love becomes strained by Lux’s secret dalliance with the past. The other significant theme is about finding oneself. Lux lives in an era where, despite developments in women’s equality, single mothers are still shunned. Conversely, in 1906 where historically things were worse for women, the egalitarian society feels much more like home.
Lux’s temerity is to be admired as she continues to visit the past despite it being beyond the bounds of possibility. More applaudable is her determination to win back her son as well as her distant parents.
Despite being set for the most part in the 1970s and 80s, Valley of the Moon has a futuristic air about it, with an element of fantasy and science fiction. It is almost a version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Lewis, 1950) but for adults, with more realistic themes. Melanie Gideon admits that she got the idea for the novel from the film Brigadoon (1954) in which the protagonist stumbles across a magical land in the woods. With similarities, Gideon has created her own version of this fairy-tale-like scenario.
Journeying through a range of emotions, Valley of the Moon is a story that engages readers from beginning to end. With ups and downs, the author explores the lives and personalities of the main characters, which develop beautifully over time. This book is not one likely to disappoint its readers.
For fans of The Time Traveler’s Wife (Niffenegger, 2003) this captivating story by Melanie Gideon is an alluring, spellbinding work of fiction about loving, being loved and finding somewhere you belong. With a touch of time travel in an otherwise typical reality, Valley of the Moon will excite, enrapture and touch readers’ hearts.
It is difficult to give a synoptic review without giving too much of the plot away. In short, the book contains the two lives of complete strangers who meet under extremely unlikely circumstances. It is 1975 and Lux Lysander is struggling to make ends meet as a single mother in San Francisco. Estranged from her parents, Benno has become her life; Lux would do anything for him. The other half of the story begins in 1906 in the Californian Sonoma Valley. Joseph has achieved his dream of creating an Edenic community where races and classes can live in harmony. Greengage is a self-sufficient society where everyone is seen as equal, however, something happens to shake up the peace – literally. A huge earthquake mysteriously leaves the valley unharmed but completely surrounded by a deadly fog. No one can leave and no one can enter, that is until Lux does.
Until the two characters’ lives collide, the narrative is fairly typical, but it quickly takes on a theme that most minds would attempt to debunk. Through a wall of fog, Lux can pass between 1975 and 1906, whereas Joseph and his friends can only stay in their own timeline. Lux begins to live a double life: one with her son Benno and one with the antiquated lifestyle of the Greengage community. Unfortunately, it is only possible to pass through the fog on a fall moon, and not necessarily every month.
Lux’s modern appearance and colloquialisms baffle the community but she soon finds herself a place amongst the inhabitants. For a while, Lux is able to keep her two lives separate, but one slip up causes her to temporarily lose the love and trust of her only son. Torn between her own flesh and blood and the only place she feels she belongs, Lux has to decide how far she would go for the people she loves.
One of the key themes of the novel is relationship. Although romance develops toward the latter stages of the story, the majority is focused on familial love and love between friends. Lux and Benno’s relationship is particularly important, especially when their love becomes strained by Lux’s secret dalliance with the past. The other significant theme is about finding oneself. Lux lives in an era where, despite developments in women’s equality, single mothers are still shunned. Conversely, in 1906 where historically things were worse for women, the egalitarian society feels much more like home.
Lux’s temerity is to be admired as she continues to visit the past despite it being beyond the bounds of possibility. More applaudable is her determination to win back her son as well as her distant parents.
Despite being set for the most part in the 1970s and 80s, Valley of the Moon has a futuristic air about it, with an element of fantasy and science fiction. It is almost a version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Lewis, 1950) but for adults, with more realistic themes. Melanie Gideon admits that she got the idea for the novel from the film Brigadoon (1954) in which the protagonist stumbles across a magical land in the woods. With similarities, Gideon has created her own version of this fairy-tale-like scenario.
Journeying through a range of emotions, Valley of the Moon is a story that engages readers from beginning to end. With ups and downs, the author explores the lives and personalities of the main characters, which develop beautifully over time. This book is not one likely to disappoint its readers.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Motion of Puppets in Books
May 16, 2018
In Keith Donohue's modern retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice, The Motion of Puppets, we're introduced to a range of characters from a besotted husband and his missing wife, to an emotionally unstable puppet girl as the husband embarks on a journey to save his wife from eternity as a doll. For fans of mythology, this sounds like a great read and it is, without a doubt, beautifully written; however, when it comes to execution, the story fell flat.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.