Search
Search results
ClareR (5721 KP) rated Stone Blind in Books
Jan 24, 2023
Greek Mythology has always been one of my favourite reads, ever since I trawled the shelves in the local library as a child. Natalie Haynes gave me a much needed Greek Mythology hit when I read A Thousand Ships, and she does it again with Stone Blind.
I loved how the stories of Medusa, her sisters and Perseus were woven together so that we get a rounded view of the story. Medusa’s sisters, the Gorgons Sthenno and Euryale are seen as more than just monsters. They are given personalities and feelings - they care for their little sister Medusa, and nurture her from a baby into a young woman.
But Sthenno and Euryale aren’t there when Medusa is raped by Poseidon. And this is where we’re introduced to Medusa as victim. She’s never normally portrayed as a victim, even when Perseus decapitates her, but Haynes has turned this story on its head. And I’m most definitely here for all that!
To match the new Medusa, we have a new Perseus. He’s an accidental hero. He just wants to save his mother the only way he can - but he needs a lot of godly interventions and help. He’s a bit brainless, if I’m honest!
I’ve always thought that the Gods were petty, and their constant bickering with one another in this book just reinforces this - I really liked how they argued, fought and tried to ge tone up on one another.
And the ending was as emotional as only a sentient, decapitated head could be. Poor Medusa. Still used as a tool for men’s pleasure, displeasure and anger.
I’m eagerly awaiting whatever comes next from Natalie Haynes, because this book was outstanding.
I loved how the stories of Medusa, her sisters and Perseus were woven together so that we get a rounded view of the story. Medusa’s sisters, the Gorgons Sthenno and Euryale are seen as more than just monsters. They are given personalities and feelings - they care for their little sister Medusa, and nurture her from a baby into a young woman.
But Sthenno and Euryale aren’t there when Medusa is raped by Poseidon. And this is where we’re introduced to Medusa as victim. She’s never normally portrayed as a victim, even when Perseus decapitates her, but Haynes has turned this story on its head. And I’m most definitely here for all that!
To match the new Medusa, we have a new Perseus. He’s an accidental hero. He just wants to save his mother the only way he can - but he needs a lot of godly interventions and help. He’s a bit brainless, if I’m honest!
I’ve always thought that the Gods were petty, and their constant bickering with one another in this book just reinforces this - I really liked how they argued, fought and tried to ge tone up on one another.
And the ending was as emotional as only a sentient, decapitated head could be. Poor Medusa. Still used as a tool for men’s pleasure, displeasure and anger.
I’m eagerly awaiting whatever comes next from Natalie Haynes, because this book was outstanding.
ClareR (5721 KP) rated The Shadow of Perseus in Books
Mar 10, 2023
Have I said lately how much I’m enjoying these retellings of Greek myths? Keep ‘em coming, I say!
And here’s another take on the story of Perseus, except this has more of a historical fiction slant to it. There’s no magic, no snakey hair, no sea monster come to take it’s sacrifice. Instead there is a story packed full of adventure with women who try to make the best of their lives in a world where the patriarchy always comes out on top.
Much like the Perseus in Natalie Haynes’ Stone Blind, Perseus in The Shadow is very unlikeable. He’s immature, sulky, and believes the world - and his grandfather - owes him something. His ability to spin his own heroic deeds (are they heroic?!)makes fools of all the men, I felt. The women aren’t fooled though, and as in the original, Medusa pays the ultimate price.
The Narrator on the audiobook, Olivia Darnley, does a really good job of bringing the characters to life. She evokes the bravery and determination of all three of the female characters: Danae, Medusa and Andromeda. They all for a time become mistresses of their own fate, and I loved them for that. But of course, Perseus puts an end to all of that for all three of them. All through his own selfishness.
I’m going to have to go and read Daughters of Sparta, aren’t I? Oh yes I am! If it’s as good as The Shadow of Perseus, it’ll be time well spent!
And here’s another take on the story of Perseus, except this has more of a historical fiction slant to it. There’s no magic, no snakey hair, no sea monster come to take it’s sacrifice. Instead there is a story packed full of adventure with women who try to make the best of their lives in a world where the patriarchy always comes out on top.
Much like the Perseus in Natalie Haynes’ Stone Blind, Perseus in The Shadow is very unlikeable. He’s immature, sulky, and believes the world - and his grandfather - owes him something. His ability to spin his own heroic deeds (are they heroic?!)makes fools of all the men, I felt. The women aren’t fooled though, and as in the original, Medusa pays the ultimate price.
The Narrator on the audiobook, Olivia Darnley, does a really good job of bringing the characters to life. She evokes the bravery and determination of all three of the female characters: Danae, Medusa and Andromeda. They all for a time become mistresses of their own fate, and I loved them for that. But of course, Perseus puts an end to all of that for all three of them. All through his own selfishness.
I’m going to have to go and read Daughters of Sparta, aren’t I? Oh yes I am! If it’s as good as The Shadow of Perseus, it’ll be time well spent!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"i didn't do it for him"
I was hoping to see something in The Dark World that I had missed the previous two viewings...something to help me enjoy this a bit more. Unfortunately, I hadn't missed anything. This is a drag.
Where do I start with the flaws? A lot of characters are criminally underutilised including Jane Foster, Erik Selvig, Odin, Heimdall and perhaps most important, the main antagonist, Malekith. I like the idea of the Dark Elves being used here but the execution is terribly flawed. It doesn't help that the likes of Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins are seemingly coasting here; the former with literally no chemistry with her love interest. Although the latter's sheer presence helps boost scenes he is in, even if he isn't trying. The other issue is this whole film is essentially flashes of brilliance drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Every now and then we get a cool scene involving Loki or Thor will crack a joke or there will be a cool action sequence but then that 5 minutes is followed by 20 minutes of characters having little to do. It's criminally boring.
I bet you can all guess the good...Chris Hemsworth who plays Thor and Tom Hiddleston who plays Loki. These two are the stars (obviously) and if it wasn't for them, this would probably get only one star. I mean, I like Thor's friends but they don't get much screentime in this. I like the look of Asgard but the story that accompanies it is boring.
It's a shame that two great lead characters are wasted by weak writing and unmotivated performances from some other cast members.
Where do I start with the flaws? A lot of characters are criminally underutilised including Jane Foster, Erik Selvig, Odin, Heimdall and perhaps most important, the main antagonist, Malekith. I like the idea of the Dark Elves being used here but the execution is terribly flawed. It doesn't help that the likes of Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins are seemingly coasting here; the former with literally no chemistry with her love interest. Although the latter's sheer presence helps boost scenes he is in, even if he isn't trying. The other issue is this whole film is essentially flashes of brilliance drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Every now and then we get a cool scene involving Loki or Thor will crack a joke or there will be a cool action sequence but then that 5 minutes is followed by 20 minutes of characters having little to do. It's criminally boring.
I bet you can all guess the good...Chris Hemsworth who plays Thor and Tom Hiddleston who plays Loki. These two are the stars (obviously) and if it wasn't for them, this would probably get only one star. I mean, I like Thor's friends but they don't get much screentime in this. I like the look of Asgard but the story that accompanies it is boring.
It's a shame that two great lead characters are wasted by weak writing and unmotivated performances from some other cast members.