Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Marionette (Dark Carousel #3) in Books
Nov 15, 2020
I have definitely taken a shine to the Dark Carousel series by Anya Allyn. There's something about it that has definitely reeled me in. As soon as I finished reading Paper Dolls, I dove right into reading Marionette, the third book in the Dark Carousel series. This one definitely had a lot of action going on!
Cassie and Molly are prisoners in Balthazar's castle as its inhabitants try to find the second book of The Mirrored Tree. Cassie and Molly desperately search for a way to leave the castle so she can be reunited with her family and with Ethan. However, things take a turn for the worst when Cassie learns her fate of which she can not escape if she wants to save her world and all of its occupants.
I find that the plot of each book in the Dark Carousel series gets weirder and weirder. The plot in Marionette so much different to the one that first started it all in Dollhouse. However, Marionette was a fast paced read, in fact, in some parts, it was a little too fast paced. There were times I was left feeling confused about what was going on. Luckily, that only happened a few times, and the rest of the plot felt solid. Marionette was quite a page turner, and I kept wanting to know what would happen next. Marionette definitely has more action in it than Paper Dolls did. It seemed like there was always something happening in Marionette. This book focused more on Cassie and somewhat on Ethan. We learn more about the different worlds (which has me confused) and more about the ice world which Cassie is from. We also learn more about Zack, Viola, Emerson, and Parker as well as the castle itself. I do wish the worlds weren't as confusing. It's hard to keep up with all the different worlds and what happens when you see your copy on that world. I wish it was better explained or that there was some kind of appendix or something in the book to help explain it. I also don't understand why the bad people need Molly. I sort of understand why they want Cassie, but I don't see what use Molly is to them as she has no powers or anything of the sort. There were a few plot twists that I didn't see coming. This book didn't really end in a cliffhanger, but I will still read the last book in the series to complete the story.
As always, Anya Allyn did a fantastic job with her characters. Cassie puts up a good fight and tries to protect everyone. I was really routing for her throughout Marionette. Molly is written well, but I feel like she's sort of a useless character. I wish I knew more about why Aisha decided to just give in to the Batistes, so more backstory there would have been nice. I am hoping there will be more backstory on Lacey as well so I can know why she sometimes speaks in third person. I know it was sort of explained that she went crazy after everything went down at the end of Dollhouse, but I'd like to know a bit more. Perhaps all of these things will be explained in the last book of the series. One character I felt bad for was Zack. I felt like he was sort of a prisoner in all of this too, yet he's very protective and sweet towards Cassie. I get why Cassie was angry at him, but he had no choice. I really wished Cassie was a bit nicer towards him in the book. I was saddened that there was hardly any Jessamine in Marionette. Jessamine is my favorite character, yet she's only in the book for the beginning for a little bit. I'm hoping she'll be featured more in the next book.
Trigger warnings for Marionette include death, murder, rape and attempted rape of a minor (not graphic), mentions of sex (not graphic), the occult, violence, alcohol, and imprisonment.
Despite the fast pacing in places, Marionette is still a great read. With great characters and lots of action, this book definitely holds one's attention throughout. I would definitely recommend Marionette by Anya Allyn to those aged 16+ who like a bit of science fiction with their supernatural horror. Now on to the next and final book in the Dark Carousel series entitled Music Box.
Cassie and Molly are prisoners in Balthazar's castle as its inhabitants try to find the second book of The Mirrored Tree. Cassie and Molly desperately search for a way to leave the castle so she can be reunited with her family and with Ethan. However, things take a turn for the worst when Cassie learns her fate of which she can not escape if she wants to save her world and all of its occupants.
I find that the plot of each book in the Dark Carousel series gets weirder and weirder. The plot in Marionette so much different to the one that first started it all in Dollhouse. However, Marionette was a fast paced read, in fact, in some parts, it was a little too fast paced. There were times I was left feeling confused about what was going on. Luckily, that only happened a few times, and the rest of the plot felt solid. Marionette was quite a page turner, and I kept wanting to know what would happen next. Marionette definitely has more action in it than Paper Dolls did. It seemed like there was always something happening in Marionette. This book focused more on Cassie and somewhat on Ethan. We learn more about the different worlds (which has me confused) and more about the ice world which Cassie is from. We also learn more about Zack, Viola, Emerson, and Parker as well as the castle itself. I do wish the worlds weren't as confusing. It's hard to keep up with all the different worlds and what happens when you see your copy on that world. I wish it was better explained or that there was some kind of appendix or something in the book to help explain it. I also don't understand why the bad people need Molly. I sort of understand why they want Cassie, but I don't see what use Molly is to them as she has no powers or anything of the sort. There were a few plot twists that I didn't see coming. This book didn't really end in a cliffhanger, but I will still read the last book in the series to complete the story.
As always, Anya Allyn did a fantastic job with her characters. Cassie puts up a good fight and tries to protect everyone. I was really routing for her throughout Marionette. Molly is written well, but I feel like she's sort of a useless character. I wish I knew more about why Aisha decided to just give in to the Batistes, so more backstory there would have been nice. I am hoping there will be more backstory on Lacey as well so I can know why she sometimes speaks in third person. I know it was sort of explained that she went crazy after everything went down at the end of Dollhouse, but I'd like to know a bit more. Perhaps all of these things will be explained in the last book of the series. One character I felt bad for was Zack. I felt like he was sort of a prisoner in all of this too, yet he's very protective and sweet towards Cassie. I get why Cassie was angry at him, but he had no choice. I really wished Cassie was a bit nicer towards him in the book. I was saddened that there was hardly any Jessamine in Marionette. Jessamine is my favorite character, yet she's only in the book for the beginning for a little bit. I'm hoping she'll be featured more in the next book.
Trigger warnings for Marionette include death, murder, rape and attempted rape of a minor (not graphic), mentions of sex (not graphic), the occult, violence, alcohol, and imprisonment.
Despite the fast pacing in places, Marionette is still a great read. With great characters and lots of action, this book definitely holds one's attention throughout. I would definitely recommend Marionette by Anya Allyn to those aged 16+ who like a bit of science fiction with their supernatural horror. Now on to the next and final book in the Dark Carousel series entitled Music Box.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Realistic view of Grieving
Films about grief are a tricky proposition, for while they can be cathartic and life-affirming, they can also be dour, depressing experiences that spiral downward under it’s own weight.
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.