Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Ruth Jefferson is a successful labor and delivery nurse with over twenty years of experience. She has a nice home and a college-bound seventeen-year-old son, Edison. She also happens to be African American. When Ruth takes over for a colleague at shift change, she is simply doing a checkup on newborn baby boy Davis. But after his checkup, she's told Davis' parents don't want her touching their child. A post-it note in his file states that no African American staff should be touching the patient. Ruth is shocked-- and angry. The next day, when Davis has a medical emergency, Ruth is faced with a choice. Does she help the baby--defying the order of the parents and her supervisor? Ruth's decision leads her on a path that involves the police and being charged with a serious crime. Police come into her home, handcuffing her and her son. Her public defender, Kennedy McQuarrie, recommends that Ruth's defense not involve race: a lightning rod for juries, she says. But Ruth is angry and humiliated and wants to clear her name, at whatever the cost.
This is a touching and powerful novel. Told from the varying points of view of Ruth, Kennedy, and Turk--baby Davis' father-- it is a compelling look at how race and family history shapes the person we become. It is a poignant story at points: it is amazing what people can rationalize when it comes to hatred. I found the novel very fitting right now, with what's going on in the U.S. Honestly, it's very frightening at times and hits a little too close to home.
Picoult's characters are well-formed and dynamic, and you find yourself drawn into parts of each.
Turk, obviously, despite the loss of his child, is not a sympathetic character, but he is a complex one; his progression over the course of the novel is intriguing, and it's amazing how Picoult did not make him a one dimensional white supremacist. The book is extremely well-researched; both from the side of white supremacy, as well as racism and the medical aspects of Davis' case. Kennedy is likeable and her struggle with Ruth's case, as she realizes the depth of both the visible and latent racism her client faces on a daily basis, is real and relatable. I applaud Picoult for tackling such a difficult subject with such honesty. It's almost as if, through Kennedy, she's admitting exactly what she doesn't know. (I highly recommend reading Picoult's afterword, as well.)
For me, the hardest parts of the book was that it gets a little too poetic in the Jodi Picoult way (those who frequently read her novels will identify), with her waxing on about race and parents and being brought together, versus letting the story tell itself. At points the book just goes on and on a bit, versus getting to the story and the point. There are lots of little subplots that go off, detracting at times from the main story and frustrating the reader. And, of course, there are some weird twists and plot points in the typical Picoult style, though they don't seem to pack the punch of her older novels. It all wraps up a little too smoothly, though I have to confess I sort of enjoyed the ending. It may have been a bit trite, but I am often a sucker for such things.
Overall, I was impressed with how Picoult approached this novel, and I enjoyed the storyline for the most part (I was certainly invested), though it dawdled at times and ended a bit too easily. I'd rate this a strong 3.5 - 3.75 stars. Certainly worth reading, especially if you're a Picoult fan.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley; is available everywhere as of 10/11/2016.
This is a touching and powerful novel. Told from the varying points of view of Ruth, Kennedy, and Turk--baby Davis' father-- it is a compelling look at how race and family history shapes the person we become. It is a poignant story at points: it is amazing what people can rationalize when it comes to hatred. I found the novel very fitting right now, with what's going on in the U.S. Honestly, it's very frightening at times and hits a little too close to home.
Picoult's characters are well-formed and dynamic, and you find yourself drawn into parts of each.
Turk, obviously, despite the loss of his child, is not a sympathetic character, but he is a complex one; his progression over the course of the novel is intriguing, and it's amazing how Picoult did not make him a one dimensional white supremacist. The book is extremely well-researched; both from the side of white supremacy, as well as racism and the medical aspects of Davis' case. Kennedy is likeable and her struggle with Ruth's case, as she realizes the depth of both the visible and latent racism her client faces on a daily basis, is real and relatable. I applaud Picoult for tackling such a difficult subject with such honesty. It's almost as if, through Kennedy, she's admitting exactly what she doesn't know. (I highly recommend reading Picoult's afterword, as well.)
For me, the hardest parts of the book was that it gets a little too poetic in the Jodi Picoult way (those who frequently read her novels will identify), with her waxing on about race and parents and being brought together, versus letting the story tell itself. At points the book just goes on and on a bit, versus getting to the story and the point. There are lots of little subplots that go off, detracting at times from the main story and frustrating the reader. And, of course, there are some weird twists and plot points in the typical Picoult style, though they don't seem to pack the punch of her older novels. It all wraps up a little too smoothly, though I have to confess I sort of enjoyed the ending. It may have been a bit trite, but I am often a sucker for such things.
Overall, I was impressed with how Picoult approached this novel, and I enjoyed the storyline for the most part (I was certainly invested), though it dawdled at times and ended a bit too easily. I'd rate this a strong 3.5 - 3.75 stars. Certainly worth reading, especially if you're a Picoult fan.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley; is available everywhere as of 10/11/2016.
Debbiereadsbook (1359 KP) rated The Strength Of His Heart (Enhanced #4) in Books
Jul 15, 2019
my fav of the four!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the AUDIO version of this book.
This is book 4 in the Enhanced series, and it’s not necessary to have read/listened to the other three books, but it might help give you a better picture of what it means to be Enhanced, and what this team means to Vance.
All Vance wanted to do, as a child, was follow in his father’s footsteps and join the police force. Waking up with the mark on his face put pays to that, but he was one of the lucky ones. His family did not treat him any differently, and they love Vance, period. Sam’s upbringing is very different, never knowing his father, and his mother dying when was he was a small child. Joining the DEA as an undercover agent helped him get over that, but now he wants out. Meeting Vance and the members of HERO is a dream come true, and Vance himself is a wet dream come true for Sam. But Sam won’t be drawn into anything with the much bigger man, he suffered before and will not again. But when Sam is kidnapped and Vance’s undercover gig is blown, they have to trust each other’s heart will be strong enough to get them out of this.
Vance is a sweetheart! Oh, I loved him here, once we get into his head. He really just wants to look after people, even though his gift was size and strength, he doesn’t want to use it. And Sam? Sam pushes all of Vance’s buttons and then some, he really does. Vance is smitten, right from when we met Sam in book three, and being partnered with Sam here? Vance is in heaven. At least till Sam and Vance have an encounter that ends all kinds of wrong for all kinds of reasons and neither man will talk to the other.
Sam’s past comes back to kidnap him here, and when it’s discovered WHO? I did NOT see that one coming, let me tell ya! But what they are doing with Enhanced adults and indeed some children, is awful, and it’s difficult reading, it really is.
This is far less explicit than the other three books, but I think it didn’t need to be. There is enough of Vance and Sam’s emotions to keep you going!
We meet Vance’s brother here. And while I had him pegged as the partner of a certain nurse, it turns out I am wrong and one of the team is strangely affected by Daniel. Their story, I *think* is next and I cannot wait to read it! Or listen, rather, cos I don’t like to flip between listening and reading in a series!
Nick J. Russo again narrates.
I am loving the combination of Ms Sue and Mr Russo, I really am!
Russo’s voices are clear and consistent across all four books, and his reading voice is deep and even. I have no trouble keeping up with multiple person conversations.
It’s the EMOTIONS I find, that Russo gets across. You can’t always pick that up when you read a book, no matter how well it’s written (and these books are VERY well written!) but hearing someone’s voice, telling you about their rotten childhood and what they had to do to survive, it gets you, right in the heart. I had to stop what I was doing many times, just to LISTEN, you know?? I had to concentrate on what was being said, cos it got to me so much.
I hope that Russo will continue to narrate the books that Victoria Sue continues to write! Cos you know, everyone needs to be happy, and they ain’t right now!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 4 in the Enhanced series, and it’s not necessary to have read/listened to the other three books, but it might help give you a better picture of what it means to be Enhanced, and what this team means to Vance.
All Vance wanted to do, as a child, was follow in his father’s footsteps and join the police force. Waking up with the mark on his face put pays to that, but he was one of the lucky ones. His family did not treat him any differently, and they love Vance, period. Sam’s upbringing is very different, never knowing his father, and his mother dying when was he was a small child. Joining the DEA as an undercover agent helped him get over that, but now he wants out. Meeting Vance and the members of HERO is a dream come true, and Vance himself is a wet dream come true for Sam. But Sam won’t be drawn into anything with the much bigger man, he suffered before and will not again. But when Sam is kidnapped and Vance’s undercover gig is blown, they have to trust each other’s heart will be strong enough to get them out of this.
Vance is a sweetheart! Oh, I loved him here, once we get into his head. He really just wants to look after people, even though his gift was size and strength, he doesn’t want to use it. And Sam? Sam pushes all of Vance’s buttons and then some, he really does. Vance is smitten, right from when we met Sam in book three, and being partnered with Sam here? Vance is in heaven. At least till Sam and Vance have an encounter that ends all kinds of wrong for all kinds of reasons and neither man will talk to the other.
Sam’s past comes back to kidnap him here, and when it’s discovered WHO? I did NOT see that one coming, let me tell ya! But what they are doing with Enhanced adults and indeed some children, is awful, and it’s difficult reading, it really is.
This is far less explicit than the other three books, but I think it didn’t need to be. There is enough of Vance and Sam’s emotions to keep you going!
We meet Vance’s brother here. And while I had him pegged as the partner of a certain nurse, it turns out I am wrong and one of the team is strangely affected by Daniel. Their story, I *think* is next and I cannot wait to read it! Or listen, rather, cos I don’t like to flip between listening and reading in a series!
Nick J. Russo again narrates.
I am loving the combination of Ms Sue and Mr Russo, I really am!
Russo’s voices are clear and consistent across all four books, and his reading voice is deep and even. I have no trouble keeping up with multiple person conversations.
It’s the EMOTIONS I find, that Russo gets across. You can’t always pick that up when you read a book, no matter how well it’s written (and these books are VERY well written!) but hearing someone’s voice, telling you about their rotten childhood and what they had to do to survive, it gets you, right in the heart. I had to stop what I was doing many times, just to LISTEN, you know?? I had to concentrate on what was being said, cos it got to me so much.
I hope that Russo will continue to narrate the books that Victoria Sue continues to write! Cos you know, everyone needs to be happy, and they ain’t right now!
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Medisafe Pill Reminder
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Never forget to take your meds and pills again with the MUST HAVE pill reminder ranked #1 by...
Medical Lab Tests
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Medical Lab Tests is the perfect pocket tool for medical laboratory tests and enables you to browse...
Hadley (567 KP) rated Jericho's Wall in Books
Sep 14, 2020
The story (1 more)
Quick read
There's a modern relatability in Jericho's Wall, Pamela Young's third novel and possible new series. Set in the future of a government controlled world, where everyone is told what job they can have, how many children they're allowed to have, and where they're allowed to live, Jericho's Wall, as the title suggests, is run by a Lord Jericho Baal. The world now contains android beings known as Monitors who listen and watch everyone to keep an uprising from happening while laser-armed drones keep an eye on everything else.
Our main character Joshlynn, who's going on 16, is preparing to take her Forever Test, which tells her what her permanent profession will be the rest of her life. Everyone has to take this test in this world, and they have no say in what their profession will be, but to Joshlynn's surprise, she gets to become a doctor, something she secretly wanted to do for a living. While receiving this great news, Joshlynn also gets bad news about her mother, someone who has been sick for awhile, collapsed in the fields while working and was taken away by the Removers. These androids (maybe even people - - - it's never specified in the book) take people away when they are no longer of use to the community and kill them, and this is what happened to Joshlynn's mother. At first, Joshlynn is affected by this, but nearing the second day later, it seems as if she just forgets about it. Joshlynn moves on with her life that very night, being taken from a rundown apartment to an uptown apartment by Monitors, where hospital staff are housed- - - this apartment compared to her former one is like moving from living in your car to a fully furnished house.
She begins to intern with a cranky nurse named Magda, learning about medications and herbal remedies that the hospital uses. She also begins to work alongside a doctor named 'Cat' McBride, a nice and likable character, who shows her some of the patients, but memorably, the nursery. This is one of the most emotional parts of the story because, not only are parents not allowed to raise their own children (which they can only have one), but if the child is born with a defect, the doctors are ordered to let the baby starve to-death. Readers learn that the logic of Lord Baal is that a child with a defect is just that and of no use to the community.
But the upside of Joshlynn working at the hospital is that she meets a couple of people who become close friends of her's: Suz, a young woman who has been working at the hospital for nearly two years, and Grif, a trouble-making patient that is staying at the hospital for the time being. Later, Joshlynn finds out that the two are planning to make an escape to the 'wilderness,' which is the wooded areas surrounding the communities that are forbidden to enter by none other than Lord Baal.
There's not much more I can say about Jericho's Wall without giving away major points of the story. It was a very enjoyable quick read that I didn't want to put down, but that didn't make it flawless; like most books, there were inconsistencies here and there, but also there were some things that just didn't make sense. I don't think casual readers will notice these things without really looking for them. I, personally, just don't like inconsistencies in the stories I read.
I think young readers who enjoyed the Maze Runner will like Jericho's Wall.
Our main character Joshlynn, who's going on 16, is preparing to take her Forever Test, which tells her what her permanent profession will be the rest of her life. Everyone has to take this test in this world, and they have no say in what their profession will be, but to Joshlynn's surprise, she gets to become a doctor, something she secretly wanted to do for a living. While receiving this great news, Joshlynn also gets bad news about her mother, someone who has been sick for awhile, collapsed in the fields while working and was taken away by the Removers. These androids (maybe even people - - - it's never specified in the book) take people away when they are no longer of use to the community and kill them, and this is what happened to Joshlynn's mother. At first, Joshlynn is affected by this, but nearing the second day later, it seems as if she just forgets about it. Joshlynn moves on with her life that very night, being taken from a rundown apartment to an uptown apartment by Monitors, where hospital staff are housed- - - this apartment compared to her former one is like moving from living in your car to a fully furnished house.
She begins to intern with a cranky nurse named Magda, learning about medications and herbal remedies that the hospital uses. She also begins to work alongside a doctor named 'Cat' McBride, a nice and likable character, who shows her some of the patients, but memorably, the nursery. This is one of the most emotional parts of the story because, not only are parents not allowed to raise their own children (which they can only have one), but if the child is born with a defect, the doctors are ordered to let the baby starve to-death. Readers learn that the logic of Lord Baal is that a child with a defect is just that and of no use to the community.
But the upside of Joshlynn working at the hospital is that she meets a couple of people who become close friends of her's: Suz, a young woman who has been working at the hospital for nearly two years, and Grif, a trouble-making patient that is staying at the hospital for the time being. Later, Joshlynn finds out that the two are planning to make an escape to the 'wilderness,' which is the wooded areas surrounding the communities that are forbidden to enter by none other than Lord Baal.
There's not much more I can say about Jericho's Wall without giving away major points of the story. It was a very enjoyable quick read that I didn't want to put down, but that didn't make it flawless; like most books, there were inconsistencies here and there, but also there were some things that just didn't make sense. I don't think casual readers will notice these things without really looking for them. I, personally, just don't like inconsistencies in the stories I read.
I think young readers who enjoyed the Maze Runner will like Jericho's Wall.
Form Maker - Pro Form Builder
Business
App
If you collect data, you need Form Maker. Get the app now and start creating your own powerful...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.