Search
Search results
Sailing Lessons
8.0
Rate It
Book
On the shores of Cape Cod, the Bailey sisters reunite with their long-lost father for a summer of...
women's fiction
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Debussy
Book
Nearly one hundred years after the death of its composer, the music of Claude Debussy has lost none...
Grown-Up Anger: The Connected Mysteries of Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, and the Calumet Massacre of 1913
Book
A tour de force of storytelling years in the making: a dual biography of two of the greatest...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated All Your Perfects in Books
Oct 1, 2020
This is the first book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
Quinn and Graham had the perfect romance and marriage. But now, that marriage is on the rocks and all those perfect memories threatened as their union is about to implode. If they can't talk to each other and work things out, they're done. Can they get past their problems and find that perfection again?
Wow, I picked a doozy for the first book in my challenge! This book was almost physically hard to read at times! It's a brutal look at a struggling marriage, as Quinn and Graham--once a perfect couple--can barely look at or talk to one another. Told in a then and now format from Quinn's perspective, we see how the two fell head over heels in love. And, conversely, we see how they fell apart. It's an emotional and tense read that's often bitterly sad and heartbreaking. Hoover makes you feel as if you're in the book, part of the characters' dissolving marriage.
This one hit home, as Quinn and Graham battle with infertility, something I know quite well. If you've struggled with this, this will be a hard read--yet you'll be able to find many parallels with the couple. It's not necessarily a happy book, yet it's romantic and sweet too. It presents a very realistic portrayal of marriage and one of the best portraits of a (straight) couple grappling with infertility that I've ever read.
This isn't an easy book to read, but it's really quite good. It packs a sucker punch, but in a good way. You'll find yourself lost in Quinn and Graham's world--I certainly recommend this fierce, touching look at love, marriage, and how far we will go for the ones we care about. 4+ stars.
Quinn and Graham had the perfect romance and marriage. But now, that marriage is on the rocks and all those perfect memories threatened as their union is about to implode. If they can't talk to each other and work things out, they're done. Can they get past their problems and find that perfection again?
Wow, I picked a doozy for the first book in my challenge! This book was almost physically hard to read at times! It's a brutal look at a struggling marriage, as Quinn and Graham--once a perfect couple--can barely look at or talk to one another. Told in a then and now format from Quinn's perspective, we see how the two fell head over heels in love. And, conversely, we see how they fell apart. It's an emotional and tense read that's often bitterly sad and heartbreaking. Hoover makes you feel as if you're in the book, part of the characters' dissolving marriage.
This one hit home, as Quinn and Graham battle with infertility, something I know quite well. If you've struggled with this, this will be a hard read--yet you'll be able to find many parallels with the couple. It's not necessarily a happy book, yet it's romantic and sweet too. It presents a very realistic portrayal of marriage and one of the best portraits of a (straight) couple grappling with infertility that I've ever read.
This isn't an easy book to read, but it's really quite good. It packs a sucker punch, but in a good way. You'll find yourself lost in Quinn and Graham's world--I certainly recommend this fierce, touching look at love, marriage, and how far we will go for the ones we care about. 4+ stars.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Yazzy's Amazing Yarn in Books
Aug 24, 2019 (Updated Aug 24, 2019)
Anyone who's followed my reviews for awhile knows that I love children's picture books. They're just so much fun to read, and they brighten up my day with how colorful the illustrations can be. When I was asked if I wanted to read and review Yazzy's Amazing Yarn by Cathey Graham Nickell, I didn't hesitate to say yes. Yazzy's Amazing Yarn was such an uplifting and exciting read!
Yazzy is a young girl who loves knitting just like her mom. When Yazzy and her mom walk by a park, Yazzy's mom reminisces about how the park was a lot better back when she was a kid. That night, Yazzy can't sleep. She's thinking about what her mom told her about the park. With the help of her friends, Yazzy decides to yarn bomb the park to bring back some of the cheer her mom experienced as a little girl.
I found the plot for Yazzy's Amazing Yarn to be interesting. My 4 year old son lost interest after a few pages though, but I don't think he's quite the demographic this book would appeal to. To me, I believe this book would appeal most to little girls aged 6 to 10 years of age. I also think the dialogue would be more understandable in this age group. Anyway, I enjoyed learning about what Yazzy and her friends would come up with to make the park more colorful and lively. When the girls leave the house for the park before it opens, I did wonder if they let Yazzy's mom know they were leaving the house. I guess that's just the mom in me though. I would have liked something written in the book that said a parent was notified of them leaving. Anyway, everything else was great, and yarn bombing was a fantastic idea to make a dreary old park come to life. I loved how the author added some history about yarn bombing at the end of the book. I had no idea yarn bombing was a thing until I read Yazzy's Amazing Yarn. From my take on it, it's when someone knits something for an item in their neighborhood such as for stop signs, traffic lights, parks, sidewalks, trees, etc.
The character of Yazzy was likable, and I think young girls can and will relate to her quite easily. She comes across as someone with a kind heart who likes to make others happy. Yazzy seems selfless and like a happy go lucky girl. I loved the diversity of all the characters I came across in Yazzy's Amazing Yarn, but it would have been even better if one of Yazzy's friends had been a boy to show that boy's like knitting as well and that it's not only for females. I was a bit disappointed that only girls were shown knitting. However, that didn't stop me from enjoying this great book.
The illustrations for Yazzy's Amazing Yarn were done superbly. Emily Calimlim, the illustrator, is such a talented artist, and it definitely showed throughout this book. I loved the different vibrant colors used throughout the pictures! My favorite scenes were the ones that took place in the park when it came to illustrations. I felt this was when the colors and illustrations jumped up at me from the page the most.
All in all, Yazzy's Amazing Yarn is such a feel good funtastic (not a typo) story that will warm everyone's heart. The story itself is beautifully written, and the illustrations are gorgeous! I would recommend Yazzy's Amazing Yarn by Cathey Graham Nickell to all ages due to the feel good factor although I do believe little girls ages 6 - 10 years would find it the most appealing. Yazzy's Amazing Yarn gets a 4 out of 5 stars from me!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Book Blog Tours for providing me with an eBook of Yazzy's Amazing Yarn by Cathey Graham Nickell in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Yazzy is a young girl who loves knitting just like her mom. When Yazzy and her mom walk by a park, Yazzy's mom reminisces about how the park was a lot better back when she was a kid. That night, Yazzy can't sleep. She's thinking about what her mom told her about the park. With the help of her friends, Yazzy decides to yarn bomb the park to bring back some of the cheer her mom experienced as a little girl.
I found the plot for Yazzy's Amazing Yarn to be interesting. My 4 year old son lost interest after a few pages though, but I don't think he's quite the demographic this book would appeal to. To me, I believe this book would appeal most to little girls aged 6 to 10 years of age. I also think the dialogue would be more understandable in this age group. Anyway, I enjoyed learning about what Yazzy and her friends would come up with to make the park more colorful and lively. When the girls leave the house for the park before it opens, I did wonder if they let Yazzy's mom know they were leaving the house. I guess that's just the mom in me though. I would have liked something written in the book that said a parent was notified of them leaving. Anyway, everything else was great, and yarn bombing was a fantastic idea to make a dreary old park come to life. I loved how the author added some history about yarn bombing at the end of the book. I had no idea yarn bombing was a thing until I read Yazzy's Amazing Yarn. From my take on it, it's when someone knits something for an item in their neighborhood such as for stop signs, traffic lights, parks, sidewalks, trees, etc.
The character of Yazzy was likable, and I think young girls can and will relate to her quite easily. She comes across as someone with a kind heart who likes to make others happy. Yazzy seems selfless and like a happy go lucky girl. I loved the diversity of all the characters I came across in Yazzy's Amazing Yarn, but it would have been even better if one of Yazzy's friends had been a boy to show that boy's like knitting as well and that it's not only for females. I was a bit disappointed that only girls were shown knitting. However, that didn't stop me from enjoying this great book.
The illustrations for Yazzy's Amazing Yarn were done superbly. Emily Calimlim, the illustrator, is such a talented artist, and it definitely showed throughout this book. I loved the different vibrant colors used throughout the pictures! My favorite scenes were the ones that took place in the park when it came to illustrations. I felt this was when the colors and illustrations jumped up at me from the page the most.
All in all, Yazzy's Amazing Yarn is such a feel good funtastic (not a typo) story that will warm everyone's heart. The story itself is beautifully written, and the illustrations are gorgeous! I would recommend Yazzy's Amazing Yarn by Cathey Graham Nickell to all ages due to the feel good factor although I do believe little girls ages 6 - 10 years would find it the most appealing. Yazzy's Amazing Yarn gets a 4 out of 5 stars from me!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Book Blog Tours for providing me with an eBook of Yazzy's Amazing Yarn by Cathey Graham Nickell in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It seems of late that every month Hollywood either releases or plans to release a remake of a classic film. This summer has spawned no less than 5 remakes of classic films or televisions shows and with box office receipts in decline, it would seem that the public is craving for something fresh.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cocaine Bear (2023) in Movies
Mar 21, 2023
A Ton of Fun
When one decides to watch a film entitled COCAINE BEAR, one pretty much knows what one is getting themselves into.
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Looking for Alaska in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Book-Review-Banner-15.png"/>;
Miles is moving to Alabama to attend a boarding school. And while he is a quiet boy that happens to remember famous people's last words, he is also looking to stay out of trouble. He meets, incidentally, the most troublesome people that are about to change his life forever.
<b><i>''So, I walked back to my room and collapsed on the bottom bun, thinking that if people were rain, I was drizzle and she was a hurricane.''</i></b>
One of these people is Alaska Young, and believe me when I say, she is trouble. She is also clever and beautiful, but most of all screwed up, and she steals Miles's heart straight away.
''Looking for Alaska'' reminded me so much of ''The Perks of Being a Wallflower''. There was definitely the same vibe of boy goes to new school, boy is quiet, boy meets loud friends and boy falls in love.
And even though I got really annoyed at the beginning due to the fact that Miles barely talks to his friends and does whatever he is told to do, his character does develop throughout the book and he manages to find his voice and his purpose which I believe made this book way more meaningful.
<b><i>''That is the fear. I have lost something important, and I cannot find it, and I need it. It is fear like if someone lost his glasses and went to the glasses store and they told him that the world had run out of glasses and he would just have to do without.''</i></b>
On the subject of his feelings towards Alaska, the love he feels, it is very hard to actually notice the big impact she has on Miles. Yes, we might agree that she didn't really care about him as we would've wanted her to do. She didn't have big feelings for him, but she did have an enormous influence on him. While she was there thinking about her boyfriend, Miles was constantly thinking about her, memorising every opinion she has, learning all her favourite book titles, listening to all of her stories and always wondering whether she maybe, just maybe feels at least a fraction of what he feels for her. And while Alaska might not be aware, Miles will still carry all his emotions in his heart. Even if they have never been returned back.
<b><i>''What the hell is instant? Nothing is instant. Instant rice takes five minutes, instant pudding an hour. I doubt that an instant of blinding pain feels particularly instantaneous.''</i></b>
The book perfectly captures a young person's way of thinking and a young person's perception of feelings, actions, and responsibility into the unfair thing we call life. I recommend it to all of you!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Book-Review-Banner-15.png"/>;
Miles is moving to Alabama to attend a boarding school. And while he is a quiet boy that happens to remember famous people's last words, he is also looking to stay out of trouble. He meets, incidentally, the most troublesome people that are about to change his life forever.
<b><i>''So, I walked back to my room and collapsed on the bottom bun, thinking that if people were rain, I was drizzle and she was a hurricane.''</i></b>
One of these people is Alaska Young, and believe me when I say, she is trouble. She is also clever and beautiful, but most of all screwed up, and she steals Miles's heart straight away.
''Looking for Alaska'' reminded me so much of ''The Perks of Being a Wallflower''. There was definitely the same vibe of boy goes to new school, boy is quiet, boy meets loud friends and boy falls in love.
And even though I got really annoyed at the beginning due to the fact that Miles barely talks to his friends and does whatever he is told to do, his character does develop throughout the book and he manages to find his voice and his purpose which I believe made this book way more meaningful.
<b><i>''That is the fear. I have lost something important, and I cannot find it, and I need it. It is fear like if someone lost his glasses and went to the glasses store and they told him that the world had run out of glasses and he would just have to do without.''</i></b>
On the subject of his feelings towards Alaska, the love he feels, it is very hard to actually notice the big impact she has on Miles. Yes, we might agree that she didn't really care about him as we would've wanted her to do. She didn't have big feelings for him, but she did have an enormous influence on him. While she was there thinking about her boyfriend, Miles was constantly thinking about her, memorising every opinion she has, learning all her favourite book titles, listening to all of her stories and always wondering whether she maybe, just maybe feels at least a fraction of what he feels for her. And while Alaska might not be aware, Miles will still carry all his emotions in his heart. Even if they have never been returned back.
<b><i>''What the hell is instant? Nothing is instant. Instant rice takes five minutes, instant pudding an hour. I doubt that an instant of blinding pain feels particularly instantaneous.''</i></b>
The book perfectly captures a young person's way of thinking and a young person's perception of feelings, actions, and responsibility into the unfair thing we call life. I recommend it to all of you!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;