Search
Search results
Factually Accurate
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Secret Garden in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Written and published in 1911 the secret garden started its life as a serialization ten issues of in The American magazine (November 1910-August 1911), before being published by the American publishers Fredrick A. Stokes in August 1911 and by British publishers Heinemann later that year. However Copyright expired in the states in 1987 and inmost other parts of the world by 1995 placing the book in public domain and resulting in several abridged and unabridged editions being published. The book has the theme of Rejuvenation and regeneration, showing that if something is neglected it dies and if its worked on and cared for it thrives (Like Mary, Colin and the garden do).
The story starts at the turn of the 20th century and follows Mary Lennox, a sickly and unloved child born abroad and brought back to her wealthy uncles house after a Cholera outbreak leaves her an orphan. As Mary gets used to her new isolated home she learns of a private walled garden once owned by her aunt forever locked by her uncle and hears crying which eventually leads to her cousin Colin. With Mary telling Colin stories about the moor, her friend Dickon and the secret garden she has access to, Colin is inspired to join her outside and as such both children improve beyond belief.
The books working title was Mistress Mary in reference to the English Nursery Rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Parts of the book was written during Burnett's visits to Buile Hill park, Maytham Hall in Kent, England. She'd lived there for a number of years and the garden was cited as influence for the book. Burnett herself kept an extensive garden however its noted besides the garden Maytham hall and Misslethwaite Manor are physically very different.
Having been marketed to both adults and children the reception may have been affected. The book was not as celebrated as Burnett's other books during her lifetime and paled in comparison to the popularity of her other books. The books revival could be traced by an almost complete eclipse at the time of Burnett's death in1924. With the rise of scholarly work in the past twenty five years the book has risen in popularity and prominence. Its often noted as amongst the best books of the 20th century. It ranked 51 in the Big Read (BBC Survey), was named amongst the Teachers top 100 books for children in 2007 and in 2012 ranked 15th in the all time children's novels in a survey published by School Library Journal.
There have been Six movies (1919, 1949, 1987, 1993 and 1994), a TV show (1975), a Musical (1989), an Anime TV series (1991), an Opera (2013), Even a colouring book published (2013) from the book each one with various degrees of popularity and success. There will be a new 'The Secret Garden' movie which is being produced by David Heyman and Rosie Alison with the Production company Heydey films and Studiocanal. Both Colin firth and Julie Walters are set to star as Mrs Medlock and Archibald Craven and the release date will be the 17th April 2020....I am very excited to go see it.
The Author is Francis Hodgson Burnett and her bio segment is in last Tuesdays book club on The Little Princess if you would like to read it.
MY OPINIONS
I came across the book after seeing the 1993 movie when I was 9/10 years old. I went looking for the book bought it and started reading. I really really like the book and I agree that the theme of rejuvenation and regeneration definitely runs through the book. I love this book and definitely will be reading it to my future children. I give this book 8/10.
The story starts at the turn of the 20th century and follows Mary Lennox, a sickly and unloved child born abroad and brought back to her wealthy uncles house after a Cholera outbreak leaves her an orphan. As Mary gets used to her new isolated home she learns of a private walled garden once owned by her aunt forever locked by her uncle and hears crying which eventually leads to her cousin Colin. With Mary telling Colin stories about the moor, her friend Dickon and the secret garden she has access to, Colin is inspired to join her outside and as such both children improve beyond belief.
The books working title was Mistress Mary in reference to the English Nursery Rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Parts of the book was written during Burnett's visits to Buile Hill park, Maytham Hall in Kent, England. She'd lived there for a number of years and the garden was cited as influence for the book. Burnett herself kept an extensive garden however its noted besides the garden Maytham hall and Misslethwaite Manor are physically very different.
Having been marketed to both adults and children the reception may have been affected. The book was not as celebrated as Burnett's other books during her lifetime and paled in comparison to the popularity of her other books. The books revival could be traced by an almost complete eclipse at the time of Burnett's death in1924. With the rise of scholarly work in the past twenty five years the book has risen in popularity and prominence. Its often noted as amongst the best books of the 20th century. It ranked 51 in the Big Read (BBC Survey), was named amongst the Teachers top 100 books for children in 2007 and in 2012 ranked 15th in the all time children's novels in a survey published by School Library Journal.
There have been Six movies (1919, 1949, 1987, 1993 and 1994), a TV show (1975), a Musical (1989), an Anime TV series (1991), an Opera (2013), Even a colouring book published (2013) from the book each one with various degrees of popularity and success. There will be a new 'The Secret Garden' movie which is being produced by David Heyman and Rosie Alison with the Production company Heydey films and Studiocanal. Both Colin firth and Julie Walters are set to star as Mrs Medlock and Archibald Craven and the release date will be the 17th April 2020....I am very excited to go see it.
The Author is Francis Hodgson Burnett and her bio segment is in last Tuesdays book club on The Little Princess if you would like to read it.
MY OPINIONS
I came across the book after seeing the 1993 movie when I was 9/10 years old. I went looking for the book bought it and started reading. I really really like the book and I agree that the theme of rejuvenation and regeneration definitely runs through the book. I love this book and definitely will be reading it to my future children. I give this book 8/10.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Theo Decker's life is changed forever when a terrorist attack on the Metropolitan Museum of Art destroys everything he holds dear. In the debris he finds a man who pleads with him to take his ring and go to a shop, the last words before he dies.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang starts as we meet mother Isabel (Gyllenhaal) who is trying to run the family home and raise her three children, while her husband is away at war, adding to her pressure is her brother-in-law Phil (Ifans) that is looking to get money and two cousins added to the family that are used to the luxury life.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 29, 2021
Continuation of the original story, with thrills and suspense throughout (1 more)
Great cast - Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe are particularly good
Plot Summary:
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Lovely Bones in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**Spoiler Alert!**
First of all, let me say this. I really wanted to love The Lovely Bones. But I didn’t. I didn’t like it very much.
This comes as a surprise to me, because while I was reading it, I found it almost impossible to put down. It was cryptic and mysterious. The problem is that at the end, it still felt cryptic and mysterious—like I’d missed something. I felt throughout the book that I’d find a plot line, or a key, or something, and it would all fit together perfectly. But it didn’t. The writing was hard to read, and I had to really focus to understand the words. The plot was very original and creative, but there just seemed to be something missing through the whole book. When I got to the end, I was very disappointed.
I didn’t feel engaged in The Lovely Bones. I felt like an outsider looking in. I related to the characters on a certain level—but then again I felt totally disconnected and withdrawn while reading.
I didn’t at all like what happened to Mr. Harvey. He needed to be caught and put in jail, or killed by the father, or something a little more than getting an icicle in his back and falling into a ravine. His death was very unsatisfactory.
I didn’t like the end at all. As I said earlier, it felt like something was missing. I got to the end and said “Hu? Did I miss something? Maybe I skipped some pages, or missed a paragraph…” and literally flipped back through the past few pages. Nothing. It was like the end of a chapter, not the end of a book. There are unanswered questions sitting right in front of you, and there are blank endings for some of the characters. By blank I mean empty, like it’s not an ending at all. Like there is another few chapters to read and then maybe it will all make sense.
As I said above, find it very difficult to stop until I got about halfway through. When I got to the halfway point, it started to feel like it wasn’t going anywhere and I put it off for about a month. The book felt like it was boring, and dead like Susie. The mystery wasn’t going to be solved. It got old. Blech.
But some of it was very fast paced and exciting, and the characters are very well developed. The dialogue flows freely and comfortably.
Also, however painful Mrs. Salmon’s leaving was, and watching the family get torn apart, it was beautiful in the end when she came back. And I loved the interaction between the characters, and I loved the characters themselves. Lindsey and Samuel were wonderful, and her baby was wonderful, and the grandma was wonderful. Poor, sweet little Buckley who grows up too fast and too hard…
So I rest closer to the negative side than the positive side. This was a good (depending on your definition) book—I just wasn’t connected to it. There were some things that I liked about The Lovely Bones. However, most of it I didn’t like. If I’m not connected to a book, how can I read it? Will I read this one again? probably not. Will I read the sequel? Not unless I get it in the mail for review and I’m really really bored.
I wish I could say more good things about this book. I wanted to love it. My friends all loved it and my mom loved it. But it felt odd and foreign and uncomfortable to me, and the ending was awful. If you consider it an ending.
Audio Review: The audio-book was read by the author, who read incredibly slow and seemingly forced. Wouldn't an author take some joy in reading their book out loud, even if it was as depressing as this one? wouldn’t the author, of all people, read with a little more energy? Alice sounded tired. Tired of her book, tired of Susie and Lindsey and Mr. Salmon and everyone else. If you’re going to read The Lovely Bones, read The Lovely Bones.
First of all, let me say this. I really wanted to love The Lovely Bones. But I didn’t. I didn’t like it very much.
This comes as a surprise to me, because while I was reading it, I found it almost impossible to put down. It was cryptic and mysterious. The problem is that at the end, it still felt cryptic and mysterious—like I’d missed something. I felt throughout the book that I’d find a plot line, or a key, or something, and it would all fit together perfectly. But it didn’t. The writing was hard to read, and I had to really focus to understand the words. The plot was very original and creative, but there just seemed to be something missing through the whole book. When I got to the end, I was very disappointed.
I didn’t feel engaged in The Lovely Bones. I felt like an outsider looking in. I related to the characters on a certain level—but then again I felt totally disconnected and withdrawn while reading.
I didn’t at all like what happened to Mr. Harvey. He needed to be caught and put in jail, or killed by the father, or something a little more than getting an icicle in his back and falling into a ravine. His death was very unsatisfactory.
I didn’t like the end at all. As I said earlier, it felt like something was missing. I got to the end and said “Hu? Did I miss something? Maybe I skipped some pages, or missed a paragraph…” and literally flipped back through the past few pages. Nothing. It was like the end of a chapter, not the end of a book. There are unanswered questions sitting right in front of you, and there are blank endings for some of the characters. By blank I mean empty, like it’s not an ending at all. Like there is another few chapters to read and then maybe it will all make sense.
As I said above, find it very difficult to stop until I got about halfway through. When I got to the halfway point, it started to feel like it wasn’t going anywhere and I put it off for about a month. The book felt like it was boring, and dead like Susie. The mystery wasn’t going to be solved. It got old. Blech.
But some of it was very fast paced and exciting, and the characters are very well developed. The dialogue flows freely and comfortably.
Also, however painful Mrs. Salmon’s leaving was, and watching the family get torn apart, it was beautiful in the end when she came back. And I loved the interaction between the characters, and I loved the characters themselves. Lindsey and Samuel were wonderful, and her baby was wonderful, and the grandma was wonderful. Poor, sweet little Buckley who grows up too fast and too hard…
So I rest closer to the negative side than the positive side. This was a good (depending on your definition) book—I just wasn’t connected to it. There were some things that I liked about The Lovely Bones. However, most of it I didn’t like. If I’m not connected to a book, how can I read it? Will I read this one again? probably not. Will I read the sequel? Not unless I get it in the mail for review and I’m really really bored.
I wish I could say more good things about this book. I wanted to love it. My friends all loved it and my mom loved it. But it felt odd and foreign and uncomfortable to me, and the ending was awful. If you consider it an ending.
Audio Review: The audio-book was read by the author, who read incredibly slow and seemingly forced. Wouldn't an author take some joy in reading their book out loud, even if it was as depressing as this one? wouldn’t the author, of all people, read with a little more energy? Alice sounded tired. Tired of her book, tired of Susie and Lindsey and Mr. Salmon and everyone else. If you’re going to read The Lovely Bones, read The Lovely Bones.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Little Fires Everywhere in Books
Mar 21, 2019
I was so close to putting this book on my DNF list. The beginning of it was SO slow that I found myself spacing out and then remembering that I was listening to a book.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.