Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Failure to Protect (Dre Thomas & Angela Evans #4) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
I don't normally read legal thrillers, but there was something about Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young that drew me in. I think it's because I was bullied as a child, but mostly because I'm a mom now. My oldest son has high functioning Autism and ADHD. He was bullied one year in school, and his school seemed to not do anything about it. Failure to Protect was a very emotional read, and I'm really glad I decided to give it a try.
The plot for Failure to Protect was solid. Nine-year-old Bailey Lewis is constantly being bullied at her school. When something major happens, Bailey's mother, Erika, decides to sue the elementary school. However, the principal, Darcella, is more concerned with keeping the school's good record intact instead of worrying about bullied students. The principal will do whatever it takes to make sure her school's stellar reputation doesn't get soiled even if it means doing some bullying herself.
Pamela Samuels Young did such a stellar job with the world building. Her knowledge of the court process and justice system is fantastic. Young is an attorney, and it's obvious she knows her stuff. Unfortunately, the subject of bullying in schools is all too real, and sadly, many schools are more worried about their reputation and all the paperwork and time a bullying case would take than actually caring about a bullied student. This fiction novel reads like a true story. There are a few plot twists which make this book even more interesting! Failure to Protect also answered every question I had. There's no speculation in Failure to Protect, and there's also no cliffhangers. This book is part of a series, but it's the first book I've read in the series, and I feel like it works as a standalone.
The pacing in Failure to Protect is done perfectly. Every single paragraph, and every single chapter flowed smoothly into the next. Not once did I want to put this book down. It had my attention throughout! I was also a fan of the short chapters which I felt helped with the pacing.
The best thing about Failure to Protect, besides everything, were the characters. Each character had such a unique personality which really helped them to feel like a real person rather than just a character in a novel. I loved little Bailey, and I just wanted to hug her and let her know that I'd protect her against her bully. It was heartbreaking reading about all she went through in her young life from losing her father not too long ago to being relentlessly bullied in school and online. I also felt horrible for her mother Erika. She also went through two horrible tragedies including one a parent should never have to go through. I was constantly in her corner, and I kept rooting for her throughout the whole bullying ordeal with the school. Erika felt like what happened to Bailey was mostly her fault, and I wanted to tell Erika that sometimes it's not easy to know everything about our children. Dre was my favorite character. I enjoyed his thought process and how passionate he was about everything. It was obvious how much he loved his goddaughter Bailey. I loved how Angela grew as a character when it came to her relationship with Erika. At first, she wasn't big on Erika, but it was obvious how much she did end up caring for her. Angela and Jenny were both fantastic attorneys, and I loved how they were willing to dedicate all their time and knowledge for Bailey's case. Darcella, the principal, was such a horrible person. Young did a fantastic job at creating Darcella to be the antagonist. So many times I was so angry with Darcella. I wanted to just shake her and ask her why she didn't do anything for Bailey. Darcella does explain why she decided to overlook the bullying, but I just wanted to know why she bothered to work in a profession dealing with children if she didn't have any empathy. I was so annoyed with Darcella. I was also annoyed with Ethan Landers, Darcella's attorney. I know he was just doing his job at the end of the day, but it wasn't easy to read about how he could just side with the enemy. Zola, Bailey's teacher, was also an interesting character. She was so conflicted about doing the right thing, and I liked reading about why she chose to do what she did. Apache, Dre's best friend, was a minor character in Failure to Protect, but he gets a mention because I loved his scenes. He was such a character, and I loved how comical he was especially when it came to helping out Dre.
Trigger warnings in Failure to Protect include bullying, racism, sexual situations (although not too graphic), suicide, death, lying, alcohol, mentions of past drug use and selling, profanity, and mentions of violence.
All in all, Failure to Protect is an emotionally well written novel. It would make a fantastic Lifetime movie - at least that's what I kept thinking whilst reading it. The story line is something that unfortunately is so commonplace in a lot of schools. I would definitely recommend Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young to those aged 18+. I think this is a book that everyone should read and can relate to on at least some level. If you do decide to read Failure to Protect (which you should), please know that you'll feel a vast range of emotions!
--
(A special thank you to Pamela Samuels Young for providing me with an eBook of Failure to Protect in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for Failure to Protect was solid. Nine-year-old Bailey Lewis is constantly being bullied at her school. When something major happens, Bailey's mother, Erika, decides to sue the elementary school. However, the principal, Darcella, is more concerned with keeping the school's good record intact instead of worrying about bullied students. The principal will do whatever it takes to make sure her school's stellar reputation doesn't get soiled even if it means doing some bullying herself.
Pamela Samuels Young did such a stellar job with the world building. Her knowledge of the court process and justice system is fantastic. Young is an attorney, and it's obvious she knows her stuff. Unfortunately, the subject of bullying in schools is all too real, and sadly, many schools are more worried about their reputation and all the paperwork and time a bullying case would take than actually caring about a bullied student. This fiction novel reads like a true story. There are a few plot twists which make this book even more interesting! Failure to Protect also answered every question I had. There's no speculation in Failure to Protect, and there's also no cliffhangers. This book is part of a series, but it's the first book I've read in the series, and I feel like it works as a standalone.
The pacing in Failure to Protect is done perfectly. Every single paragraph, and every single chapter flowed smoothly into the next. Not once did I want to put this book down. It had my attention throughout! I was also a fan of the short chapters which I felt helped with the pacing.
The best thing about Failure to Protect, besides everything, were the characters. Each character had such a unique personality which really helped them to feel like a real person rather than just a character in a novel. I loved little Bailey, and I just wanted to hug her and let her know that I'd protect her against her bully. It was heartbreaking reading about all she went through in her young life from losing her father not too long ago to being relentlessly bullied in school and online. I also felt horrible for her mother Erika. She also went through two horrible tragedies including one a parent should never have to go through. I was constantly in her corner, and I kept rooting for her throughout the whole bullying ordeal with the school. Erika felt like what happened to Bailey was mostly her fault, and I wanted to tell Erika that sometimes it's not easy to know everything about our children. Dre was my favorite character. I enjoyed his thought process and how passionate he was about everything. It was obvious how much he loved his goddaughter Bailey. I loved how Angela grew as a character when it came to her relationship with Erika. At first, she wasn't big on Erika, but it was obvious how much she did end up caring for her. Angela and Jenny were both fantastic attorneys, and I loved how they were willing to dedicate all their time and knowledge for Bailey's case. Darcella, the principal, was such a horrible person. Young did a fantastic job at creating Darcella to be the antagonist. So many times I was so angry with Darcella. I wanted to just shake her and ask her why she didn't do anything for Bailey. Darcella does explain why she decided to overlook the bullying, but I just wanted to know why she bothered to work in a profession dealing with children if she didn't have any empathy. I was so annoyed with Darcella. I was also annoyed with Ethan Landers, Darcella's attorney. I know he was just doing his job at the end of the day, but it wasn't easy to read about how he could just side with the enemy. Zola, Bailey's teacher, was also an interesting character. She was so conflicted about doing the right thing, and I liked reading about why she chose to do what she did. Apache, Dre's best friend, was a minor character in Failure to Protect, but he gets a mention because I loved his scenes. He was such a character, and I loved how comical he was especially when it came to helping out Dre.
Trigger warnings in Failure to Protect include bullying, racism, sexual situations (although not too graphic), suicide, death, lying, alcohol, mentions of past drug use and selling, profanity, and mentions of violence.
All in all, Failure to Protect is an emotionally well written novel. It would make a fantastic Lifetime movie - at least that's what I kept thinking whilst reading it. The story line is something that unfortunately is so commonplace in a lot of schools. I would definitely recommend Failure to Protect by Pamela Samuels Young to those aged 18+. I think this is a book that everyone should read and can relate to on at least some level. If you do decide to read Failure to Protect (which you should), please know that you'll feel a vast range of emotions!
--
(A special thank you to Pamela Samuels Young for providing me with an eBook of Failure to Protect in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Steven Fell (41 KP) rated Nothing is True & Everything is Possible by Enter Shikari in Music
Apr 21, 2020 (Updated Apr 21, 2020)
Mix of old and new styles of Shikari (3 more)
Songs that are going to be incredible live
Satellites message
Overall a solid set of songs
Will divide fans (2 more)
Pace is up and down
May be hard to sell for new listeners of the band
The definitive album?
Nothing is true and everything is possible is the 5th studio album by Enter Shikari was released on Friday 17th April 2020 containing 15 'songs'. While speaking about the album before release Rou the lead singer and only producer of the album described the album as the definitive Enter Shikari album. This statement is very important and for me changed how I listened to the album. For the most part I agree with Rou. It's an album full of songs that could fit into any of Shikari's previous albums or even their side project Shikari sound system. It also gives us clues into a new direction they may want to take.
This is also the problem NITEIP may face with dividing fans. Shikari's last album The Spark was met with some hesitation from the band's most devoted fans from being very different from say their earlier work like take to the skies and common dreads. Taking a more 'softer' approach and really letting Rou's voice carry the songs. The Spark happens to be my favourite Shikari album and I think Rou has one of the greatest lead singer voices in recent times and doesn't always get the recognition he deserves.
Two songs that I beileve may take diehard fans out of the album are crossing the Rubicon and The pressures on. Both are very 'poppy' and could easily be slotted onto a more main stream bands album. Although crossing the Rubicon has a little Easter egg back to labyrinth and a catchy chorus which will get stuck in your head. Crossing the Rubicon does feels weirdly out of place though, sandwhiched between the quite frankly phenomenal opening track the great unknown and the lead single the dreamers hotel which also deserves credit for being a tune that will surely make people 'pop' live, it is also rightly in my eyes the lead single.
Shikari gifted us with five songs just before release the great unknown, the dreamers hotel, the king, T.I.N.A and satellites. All of these songs are brilliant and really got me excited for the album but compared to the other tracks may leave people disappointed that this isn't the style throughout the album. However I found myself loving the slower pace to both parts of waltzing of the face of the earth. Marionettes is another two parter which is also slower to begin with in part one but builds brilliantly into Marionettes part 2s chorus which is an absolute blast and I find my self bellowing it out. It showcases both rou's incredible writing and beautiful voice with the line "our minds are firewood and now we spark the match, we set ourselves alight" being my favourite lyrics on the entire album.
Satellites the second single off the album released the day before the album dropped is a very passionate piece that was wrote by Rou and in his own words was to show his compassion towards the LGBTQ community. "So we don't hold hands in daylight" a line from the song in which rou's friend told him he was scared to do brings you instantly into one of Shikari's most meaningful and deeply involving songs throughout their discography. Another song that is surely going to be a hit and already been given great feedback online which also manages to show that Rou's writing is both on top form and evolving album to album.
T.I.N.A was my least favourite of the songs released before the album but is cleverly placed after Reprise 3 which is an Easter egg fans will crave and really makes T.I.N.A one of the standout tracks. The king my personal favourite from the album is a song that feels both familiar and fresh which I wish was placed last to close out the album but I also understand finishing with waltzing of the face of the earth part 2 as a come down song but this may again take people away from the album wanting to finish on a banger.
Modern living is one of the songs that really caught my ear on my first play through and even made me instantly replay it. It has a very nineties vibe which you could imagine a band like blur releasing. It is followed by apocholics anonymous which for me is a skipable track that although feeds from modern living doesn't add to it like reprise 3 does for T.I.N.A.
Elegcy for extinction is a completely different beast compared to anything Enter Shikari have released before. It's a orchestral piece with no lyrics that would easily fit on a film score and even sounds Disney esque to begin with before possibly finishing in a battle. Well that's how I saw it in my head. This is another song that may divide people but it's a compelling piece that makes me believe the band could easily venture into movie scores into the future which is something I didn't know I needed.
Special mention needs to go for creating an album where it feels every type type of instrument was used and to full effect. I also believe this is the album where Rob Rolfe really gets to shine on drums. To me it feels like you can hear his confidence come through in some of the most intense songs.
To summarise this does feel like a collection of Shikari styles which will both please and annoy fans. For me I found it a pleasant surprise and came at a time where we all needed a pick up. Shikari have always managed to blend genres of music and this is an album showcasing their talent to do just that, even managing to tackle classical. As for it being the definitive album I would have to agree with Rou with it being an album that manages to make me reminisce and look forward to the future.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the album. Stay safe.
Steve
This is also the problem NITEIP may face with dividing fans. Shikari's last album The Spark was met with some hesitation from the band's most devoted fans from being very different from say their earlier work like take to the skies and common dreads. Taking a more 'softer' approach and really letting Rou's voice carry the songs. The Spark happens to be my favourite Shikari album and I think Rou has one of the greatest lead singer voices in recent times and doesn't always get the recognition he deserves.
Two songs that I beileve may take diehard fans out of the album are crossing the Rubicon and The pressures on. Both are very 'poppy' and could easily be slotted onto a more main stream bands album. Although crossing the Rubicon has a little Easter egg back to labyrinth and a catchy chorus which will get stuck in your head. Crossing the Rubicon does feels weirdly out of place though, sandwhiched between the quite frankly phenomenal opening track the great unknown and the lead single the dreamers hotel which also deserves credit for being a tune that will surely make people 'pop' live, it is also rightly in my eyes the lead single.
Shikari gifted us with five songs just before release the great unknown, the dreamers hotel, the king, T.I.N.A and satellites. All of these songs are brilliant and really got me excited for the album but compared to the other tracks may leave people disappointed that this isn't the style throughout the album. However I found myself loving the slower pace to both parts of waltzing of the face of the earth. Marionettes is another two parter which is also slower to begin with in part one but builds brilliantly into Marionettes part 2s chorus which is an absolute blast and I find my self bellowing it out. It showcases both rou's incredible writing and beautiful voice with the line "our minds are firewood and now we spark the match, we set ourselves alight" being my favourite lyrics on the entire album.
Satellites the second single off the album released the day before the album dropped is a very passionate piece that was wrote by Rou and in his own words was to show his compassion towards the LGBTQ community. "So we don't hold hands in daylight" a line from the song in which rou's friend told him he was scared to do brings you instantly into one of Shikari's most meaningful and deeply involving songs throughout their discography. Another song that is surely going to be a hit and already been given great feedback online which also manages to show that Rou's writing is both on top form and evolving album to album.
T.I.N.A was my least favourite of the songs released before the album but is cleverly placed after Reprise 3 which is an Easter egg fans will crave and really makes T.I.N.A one of the standout tracks. The king my personal favourite from the album is a song that feels both familiar and fresh which I wish was placed last to close out the album but I also understand finishing with waltzing of the face of the earth part 2 as a come down song but this may again take people away from the album wanting to finish on a banger.
Modern living is one of the songs that really caught my ear on my first play through and even made me instantly replay it. It has a very nineties vibe which you could imagine a band like blur releasing. It is followed by apocholics anonymous which for me is a skipable track that although feeds from modern living doesn't add to it like reprise 3 does for T.I.N.A.
Elegcy for extinction is a completely different beast compared to anything Enter Shikari have released before. It's a orchestral piece with no lyrics that would easily fit on a film score and even sounds Disney esque to begin with before possibly finishing in a battle. Well that's how I saw it in my head. This is another song that may divide people but it's a compelling piece that makes me believe the band could easily venture into movie scores into the future which is something I didn't know I needed.
Special mention needs to go for creating an album where it feels every type type of instrument was used and to full effect. I also believe this is the album where Rob Rolfe really gets to shine on drums. To me it feels like you can hear his confidence come through in some of the most intense songs.
To summarise this does feel like a collection of Shikari styles which will both please and annoy fans. For me I found it a pleasant surprise and came at a time where we all needed a pick up. Shikari have always managed to blend genres of music and this is an album showcasing their talent to do just that, even managing to tackle classical. As for it being the definitive album I would have to agree with Rou with it being an album that manages to make me reminisce and look forward to the future.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the album. Stay safe.
Steve
There will be spoilers, so you have been warned!
I have said this before and I will say it again, this series is amazing! I love how much power Meyer gives to her leading female protagonists, and I especially like how she makes them to be so dynamic. The same goes to the male characters, but honestly, I don't think they are given as much of a role as the women, and I am okay with that.
Lets start off with Cinder. She is so kick ass in this book. Not like she isn't in the others, but in Winter, she allows herself to become the queen she is. Even though she is scared to death and does not want any harm to come to her friends, she is willing to accept their help and start a gosh darn revolution to save both the Lunar colonies and all of Earth! All of this while trying to stay sane, learning how her powers work, trying to not become like her Aunt, trying to save all of her friends, and have a romantic relationship with a certain Emperor. I just really appreciate how, even though she is painted as this weird thing being a cyborg, she is able to push past those hardships and still come out a great person.
Iko is so amazing in this series as well. She is such a great friend and, honestly, I just freaking love her! All of the sarcastic comments she makes give me happy thoughts. Plus, she is just as bad a flirt as Thorne is!
Scarlet is so fierce. Not only has she been kidnapped (multiple times in this series), she also has to deal with the fact that basically all of her family is dead and the only person she loves is a Lunar wolf-hybrid. She is so strong and loving. Once someone comes into her pack (yes, I said pack because she is the freaking Alpha), she protects them at all costs. Her relationship with Winter, while it started off rocky, ends up to be really special. I love how Meyer made her so strong and level headed, but still gave her a "soft" side. (I put soft in quotation marks because she is never really soft, but she cares a lot and I couldn't think of a better way to describe that.)
Cress is one of my favorite characters in this whole series. She is just so full of hope and love and joy and is able to spread that to everyone else. I love how much she loves Thorne, but she doesn't want to ruin their friendship, so she kinda tries to hide it and push away the fact that HE FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT HER. Sorry, I am just very passionate about these two. They are just so freaking cute together I want to die. Also, even though she is this tiny, cute thing, she is a bad ass as well. She can hack literally anything and shot her boyfriend's fingers off. On top of that, SHE SURVIVED BEING STABBED IN THE STOMACH! How much more metal can she get? (Apart from becoming cyborg, I guess)
Now, to conclude our leading ladies, we come to Winter. I feel so horrible for her. She had to endure her whole life with her evil step-mother Levana, but she was still able to come out on top. She used her kindness and compassion to succeed in life rather than manipulation. She genuinely cares about the people in her life and her love for Jacin is stellar. (get it?) I am so glad she is able to be happy in the end because, stars above, she deserves it. I kinda wanted her to become queen for just a second, but I am honestly fine with her being ambassador. Like I said before, her friendship with Scarlet is so pure and good. I just love her so much.
Now onto the boys starting with Kai. Kai is so great. He has to marry Levana, yet he still believes in Cinder as much as he can. He just wants what is best for his country, and while being emperor is difficult, he still makes time for his friends. Well, they do kidnap him for about a month, but he helped them with their plans!
Wolf is too good for the world. He has been through so much, from the alterations, to his brother being drafted and then killed (?), his girlfriend being kidnapped, then his mother being shot in front of him, and more alterations. Give the guy a break! I do love how he tries to quell his animal instincts for Scarlet and how he shows how much he loves her.
Thorne was so adorable when he got his sight back and all he could do was stare at Cress. Like, oh my stars goals! He was still as sassy as ever, but we also got to see a super sweet side to him that was very insecure about his feelings toward Cress. I thought that was really cool to see alongside his arrogant asshole side.
Jacin was a mystery from the start. I knew he wasn't all bad, even when he sold out the crew to Levana, but I didn't really know the extent to his feelings toward Winter. Everything, and I mean everything, he does is for her. He just wants to protect her from the world, Levana, and herself, but he doesn't really know how to do that completely. He is so shy with his emotions, but once he lets them out, it's like he can't hold back the floods anymore!
The plot was very well thought out as well. I was very impressed with the structure of it, and quite possibly more important, the actual format. I did NOT expect the book to be over eight hundred pages just looking at it. When I looked to the end to see the page count when I was about 42 pages in, I was shocked to say the least. Holy cow Fiewel and Friends! Great printing job! But back to the actual plot, I really enjoyed it, and while I was sad to see it over, I loved the way it ended. There was hope and happiness, but it wasn't as if it was not hard won. They all had their battle scars, but they were functioning and moving past their problems.
Overall, I freaking loved this series so much! If any of you ever want to talk about it with me, feel free! I am up to the task!
I have said this before and I will say it again, this series is amazing! I love how much power Meyer gives to her leading female protagonists, and I especially like how she makes them to be so dynamic. The same goes to the male characters, but honestly, I don't think they are given as much of a role as the women, and I am okay with that.
Lets start off with Cinder. She is so kick ass in this book. Not like she isn't in the others, but in Winter, she allows herself to become the queen she is. Even though she is scared to death and does not want any harm to come to her friends, she is willing to accept their help and start a gosh darn revolution to save both the Lunar colonies and all of Earth! All of this while trying to stay sane, learning how her powers work, trying to not become like her Aunt, trying to save all of her friends, and have a romantic relationship with a certain Emperor. I just really appreciate how, even though she is painted as this weird thing being a cyborg, she is able to push past those hardships and still come out a great person.
Iko is so amazing in this series as well. She is such a great friend and, honestly, I just freaking love her! All of the sarcastic comments she makes give me happy thoughts. Plus, she is just as bad a flirt as Thorne is!
Scarlet is so fierce. Not only has she been kidnapped (multiple times in this series), she also has to deal with the fact that basically all of her family is dead and the only person she loves is a Lunar wolf-hybrid. She is so strong and loving. Once someone comes into her pack (yes, I said pack because she is the freaking Alpha), she protects them at all costs. Her relationship with Winter, while it started off rocky, ends up to be really special. I love how Meyer made her so strong and level headed, but still gave her a "soft" side. (I put soft in quotation marks because she is never really soft, but she cares a lot and I couldn't think of a better way to describe that.)
Cress is one of my favorite characters in this whole series. She is just so full of hope and love and joy and is able to spread that to everyone else. I love how much she loves Thorne, but she doesn't want to ruin their friendship, so she kinda tries to hide it and push away the fact that HE FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT HER. Sorry, I am just very passionate about these two. They are just so freaking cute together I want to die. Also, even though she is this tiny, cute thing, she is a bad ass as well. She can hack literally anything and shot her boyfriend's fingers off. On top of that, SHE SURVIVED BEING STABBED IN THE STOMACH! How much more metal can she get? (Apart from becoming cyborg, I guess)
Now, to conclude our leading ladies, we come to Winter. I feel so horrible for her. She had to endure her whole life with her evil step-mother Levana, but she was still able to come out on top. She used her kindness and compassion to succeed in life rather than manipulation. She genuinely cares about the people in her life and her love for Jacin is stellar. (get it?) I am so glad she is able to be happy in the end because, stars above, she deserves it. I kinda wanted her to become queen for just a second, but I am honestly fine with her being ambassador. Like I said before, her friendship with Scarlet is so pure and good. I just love her so much.
Now onto the boys starting with Kai. Kai is so great. He has to marry Levana, yet he still believes in Cinder as much as he can. He just wants what is best for his country, and while being emperor is difficult, he still makes time for his friends. Well, they do kidnap him for about a month, but he helped them with their plans!
Wolf is too good for the world. He has been through so much, from the alterations, to his brother being drafted and then killed (?), his girlfriend being kidnapped, then his mother being shot in front of him, and more alterations. Give the guy a break! I do love how he tries to quell his animal instincts for Scarlet and how he shows how much he loves her.
Thorne was so adorable when he got his sight back and all he could do was stare at Cress. Like, oh my stars goals! He was still as sassy as ever, but we also got to see a super sweet side to him that was very insecure about his feelings toward Cress. I thought that was really cool to see alongside his arrogant asshole side.
Jacin was a mystery from the start. I knew he wasn't all bad, even when he sold out the crew to Levana, but I didn't really know the extent to his feelings toward Winter. Everything, and I mean everything, he does is for her. He just wants to protect her from the world, Levana, and herself, but he doesn't really know how to do that completely. He is so shy with his emotions, but once he lets them out, it's like he can't hold back the floods anymore!
The plot was very well thought out as well. I was very impressed with the structure of it, and quite possibly more important, the actual format. I did NOT expect the book to be over eight hundred pages just looking at it. When I looked to the end to see the page count when I was about 42 pages in, I was shocked to say the least. Holy cow Fiewel and Friends! Great printing job! But back to the actual plot, I really enjoyed it, and while I was sad to see it over, I loved the way it ended. There was hope and happiness, but it wasn't as if it was not hard won. They all had their battle scars, but they were functioning and moving past their problems.
Overall, I freaking loved this series so much! If any of you ever want to talk about it with me, feel free! I am up to the task!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Total Recall (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remaking classic films is always risky business. Mainly because there is a specific reason those movies are so well received – because they are the best of their time. Remakes are inherently risky because the filmmakers have a bar they have to at least reach, and they absolutely cannot tread the exact same ground as the original. They have to do something new, modern, or innovate. Or, at least they are expected to. When remakes work, they soar. When they don’t… Well, that’s another story. Paul Verhoeven’s “Total Recall” (1990) was an excellent science fiction monolith of its time. It stood out as a heartfelt science fiction story, one that was exceptionally aware of its own identity, design, and overall setting. It reflected the vary soul of its time – intentionally representational of culture at the time (late 80s and early 90s). If Len Wiseman’s remake, “Total Recall” (2012) is supposed to be a representation of contemporary culture in the same way as the original, then I fear our popular culture is too shallow for high minded science fiction. While not a bad movie – in fact, it is actually quite entertaining overall – it just does not feature the same soul and passion of the original film.
The premise follows the original in only a rough sense. Sometime in the future, the world has been left mostly uninhabitable due to a deadly chemical war across the globe. Humanity has been left to residing in the only remaining habitable landmasses – Western Europe and “The Colony”, the latter being modern-day Australia. Because air travel is now impossible, the only travel between the landmasses is through a massive elevator called “The Fall” that cuts through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is a factory worker who works in Europe but lives in “The Colony” with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinstale). His chronic nightmares lead him to become interested in the “Rekall” service – a machine that can implant memories into customers. His interest will lead him on a wild journey with Melina (Jessica Biel) to learn about his true self as well as secrets of Cohaagen’s (Bryan Cranston) tyrannical administration.
The problems of the film really start with the premise. While I enjoy the creativity of something like “The Fall”, it is simply too ridiculous to take seriously. They deserve credit for coming up with a relatively unknown science fiction concept, but an elevator that travels through the center of the Earth? Peoples’ suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far. It serves a practical purpose in the plot – to create the conflict between “The Colony” and the mainland and between the government and the Resistance. Yet, too much time is spent trying to introduce this concept and make it seem plausible than the film should. It honestly seems easier to just use the original film’s conflict between settings – Mars and Earth. I have to ask, what makes an elevator between two lands more contemporary of an idea than a conflict between colonial Mars and Earth. This is especially true considering recent news that a Mars colony might be seen in our lifetimes.
The other problems are more literary. Colin Farrell’s Douglas Quaid is portrayed very well throughout the film, and he manages to make the character satisfactory in the emotional portrayal of a man with a confused past and an insane situation. But even then, I have to say Arnold’s original portrayal seemed overall more human. The problem with Colin Farrell’s character is a mixture of performance and writing in his introduction. It is hard to believe him as someone so distraught over his nightmares that he absolutely feels compelled to go to Rekall. If they spent more time exploring his inner demons and how they are bringing his life down, then he would have been a much more compelling character. As it stands, he just goes through the motions of a protagonist. All of the other characters are the same way. Kate Beckinstale’s villainous Lori and Jessica Biel’s Melina are fairly shallow characters. They are not bad at their roles but that is all they, unfortunately, are: roles. Like Quaid, they just go through the motions, playing their part as clichéd character archetypes. Bryan Cranston is always awesome in any role, but in this he is not given much to work with. All he ends up being is just an evil tyrant with a megalomaniacal plot – with very little reason or background.
Those issues said, there are many things that do work. The pacing is good throughout, with no moments feeling awkward. The art design is exceptional, and there are no moments in the film that are boring to look at. To its credit, almost every scene is full of beautiful science-fiction design. The only complaint in this area is that some of the action scenes feel very cluttered due to the overall noise of The Colony’s design. The plot moves forward steadily, and it is overall simple to understand. That said, it is not without its own faults. The plot starts out great but becomes full of usual secret agent thriller clichés. Also, the plot becomes very campy, not to mention unbelievable, in its third act. The third act is also where there are the most plot holes – notable plot holes at that.
If you can shut your brain off for a couple hours, you can enjoy “Total Recall”. The film is pretty to look at and is absolutely packed with action sequences. All of the action sequences are well shot, well paced, and entertaining. The actors all do great with what they are given; but the problem is that they are not given much. They are all fairly flat characters, but are all satisfactory for the service of the plot – a plot that is well paced and understandable, but one that becomes campy, ridiculous, and peppered with notable plot holes. It is not as tightly written and directed to be a great secret agent thriller, and not as inspired to be a great science fiction story. The original was exceptional in its setting construction – pulling the audience into the amazingly designed Paul Verhoeven world. It was full of comedy and thrills, thought and design. As it stands, the moments that could really go far in establishing a passionate soul-filled, inspired world are instead spent on making quick references to those vary moments from the original. It could have established its own voice, its own heart and soul, but it just settles on being your clichéd average science fiction blockbuster.
The premise follows the original in only a rough sense. Sometime in the future, the world has been left mostly uninhabitable due to a deadly chemical war across the globe. Humanity has been left to residing in the only remaining habitable landmasses – Western Europe and “The Colony”, the latter being modern-day Australia. Because air travel is now impossible, the only travel between the landmasses is through a massive elevator called “The Fall” that cuts through the center of the Earth. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is a factory worker who works in Europe but lives in “The Colony” with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinstale). His chronic nightmares lead him to become interested in the “Rekall” service – a machine that can implant memories into customers. His interest will lead him on a wild journey with Melina (Jessica Biel) to learn about his true self as well as secrets of Cohaagen’s (Bryan Cranston) tyrannical administration.
The problems of the film really start with the premise. While I enjoy the creativity of something like “The Fall”, it is simply too ridiculous to take seriously. They deserve credit for coming up with a relatively unknown science fiction concept, but an elevator that travels through the center of the Earth? Peoples’ suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far. It serves a practical purpose in the plot – to create the conflict between “The Colony” and the mainland and between the government and the Resistance. Yet, too much time is spent trying to introduce this concept and make it seem plausible than the film should. It honestly seems easier to just use the original film’s conflict between settings – Mars and Earth. I have to ask, what makes an elevator between two lands more contemporary of an idea than a conflict between colonial Mars and Earth. This is especially true considering recent news that a Mars colony might be seen in our lifetimes.
The other problems are more literary. Colin Farrell’s Douglas Quaid is portrayed very well throughout the film, and he manages to make the character satisfactory in the emotional portrayal of a man with a confused past and an insane situation. But even then, I have to say Arnold’s original portrayal seemed overall more human. The problem with Colin Farrell’s character is a mixture of performance and writing in his introduction. It is hard to believe him as someone so distraught over his nightmares that he absolutely feels compelled to go to Rekall. If they spent more time exploring his inner demons and how they are bringing his life down, then he would have been a much more compelling character. As it stands, he just goes through the motions of a protagonist. All of the other characters are the same way. Kate Beckinstale’s villainous Lori and Jessica Biel’s Melina are fairly shallow characters. They are not bad at their roles but that is all they, unfortunately, are: roles. Like Quaid, they just go through the motions, playing their part as clichéd character archetypes. Bryan Cranston is always awesome in any role, but in this he is not given much to work with. All he ends up being is just an evil tyrant with a megalomaniacal plot – with very little reason or background.
Those issues said, there are many things that do work. The pacing is good throughout, with no moments feeling awkward. The art design is exceptional, and there are no moments in the film that are boring to look at. To its credit, almost every scene is full of beautiful science-fiction design. The only complaint in this area is that some of the action scenes feel very cluttered due to the overall noise of The Colony’s design. The plot moves forward steadily, and it is overall simple to understand. That said, it is not without its own faults. The plot starts out great but becomes full of usual secret agent thriller clichés. Also, the plot becomes very campy, not to mention unbelievable, in its third act. The third act is also where there are the most plot holes – notable plot holes at that.
If you can shut your brain off for a couple hours, you can enjoy “Total Recall”. The film is pretty to look at and is absolutely packed with action sequences. All of the action sequences are well shot, well paced, and entertaining. The actors all do great with what they are given; but the problem is that they are not given much. They are all fairly flat characters, but are all satisfactory for the service of the plot – a plot that is well paced and understandable, but one that becomes campy, ridiculous, and peppered with notable plot holes. It is not as tightly written and directed to be a great secret agent thriller, and not as inspired to be a great science fiction story. The original was exceptional in its setting construction – pulling the audience into the amazingly designed Paul Verhoeven world. It was full of comedy and thrills, thought and design. As it stands, the moments that could really go far in establishing a passionate soul-filled, inspired world are instead spent on making quick references to those vary moments from the original. It could have established its own voice, its own heart and soul, but it just settles on being your clichéd average science fiction blockbuster.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b><i>"What a stupid book."</i></b>
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
That was my initial thought after turning the final page of <b>Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later</b>.
As a pre-teen, I was addicted to the <u>Sweet Valley High</u> series, and then later, the <u>Sweet Valley University</u> series as well. Before that even, I had read some of the Twins and Kids series, so when I heard this was coming out last year, I just knew I had to read it. I was excited beyond compare and went into full geek-out mode. Where are the perfect size-six Wakefield twins, and their friends and enemies, now? What are their occupations? Who are they dating or who'd they marry? And my questions kept going on and on. What has inspired this obsession? It's not like these books were high literature, but somehow they became ingrained into my life to this very day and I cannot help but remember SVH fondly.
It is nearly impossible to review the story within the covers without spoilers, but I am going to try my darnedest. Some cursing may or may not be involved.
<b>Short synopsis</b> (snarky comments in parentheses ;P):
Jessica has betrayed Elizabeth. <i>(Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what she did. Anyone who's read the books could make an accurate guess.)</i> The Ultimate Betrayal. <i>(Oooooh!)</i> Elizabeth flees to New York. Elizabeth is a slightly sympathetic bitter victim/martyr who craves revenge throughout the book. Jessica is supposed to be a sympathetic betrayer/victim who's heartsick at destroying her sister. <i>(I don't buy it.)</i> Tons of reminiscing flashbacks ensue throughout the book, sometimes the same ones told by different characters, and take up about half of it, so there's barely any plot. Book ends with a thirteen-page <i>Where Are They Now?</i>-type epilogue that tells old fans what has happened to many major supporting characters from the original high school series. <i>(Apparently no one is allowed to be happy. And anyone you may have originally liked from SVH has turned into a big dick. WTF?)</i>
I expected to enjoy this as the usual over-the-top, soap opera stories I remember, but revamped a bit. Sadly, I was left feeling underwhelmed, disappointed, annoyed, and rather pissed off. For one thing, I could not buy the main betrayal -- <spoiler>Jessica and Todd?! In love!!?? Really? In what surreal dimension does that make any kind of sense? This broke the book for me. How can I believe anything else if this doesn't ring true. A passionate affair, sure. A one-night stand, why not? But actual 'til death do us part nonsense? Bull. Not when it's almost always been the Elizabeth and Todd, "made-for-each-other" type of thing. I actually wouldn't have minded if E & T hadn't ended up together, but for Todd to be with Jessica, that's just madness, plain and simple.</spoiler> -- it was just so unbelievable. And I mean that in a Sweet Valley way, which we all know is not steeped in any form of actual reality, so my standards are quite low and I expect the extraordinary and overwrought. So from this point on, which is within the first two chapters, I struggled, but somehow managed to read on. I admit, I gagged more than few times throughout the book. Who wouldn't when faced with passages such as this one,
<blockquote>"And what faces they were.
Gorgeous. Absolutely amazing. The kind you couldn't stop looking at. Their eyes were shades of aqua that danced in the light like shards of precious stones, oval and fringed with thick, light brown lashes long enough to cast a shadow on their cheeks. Their silky blond hair, the cascading kind, fell just below their shoulders. And to complete the perfection, their rosy lips looked as if they were penciled on. There wasn't a thing wrong with their figures, either. It was if billions of possibilities all fell together perfectly.
Twice."
-page 9/10</blockquote>
I hope you managed to hold onto your last meal. I barely did. I also had to endure "his beloved," "his love," and other similar nauseating descriptions.
This is not the PG-rated books from the past, the word "orgasm" is actually used. So is the F-bomb and other expletives. *gasp* Seriously, it does push the boundaries more than the innocent SVH series, but it's not very shocking by today's standards. Except that it does involve the Wakefield Twins, which was strange at first. Of course, current trends had to pop up, like Twitter and Facebook, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce, which always makes a book better and doesn't date it in the least. (That was heavy sarcasm in case you weren't sure.) The book does refer to some incidents and people from the SVU series, but only certain elements, otherwise it's mainly a continuation of high school and no one from the university days actually appears in the book.
Neither Elizabeth nor Jessica felt true to form, especially Jessica, and in fact, none of the characters, whether seen or just talked about, were right. Sure, some people change and some don't, but not a one was recognizable. Where did these strangers with the same names come from? Why couldn't there have been some semblance of the original shining through? Again, I have a hard time with the basis of the book, so that has severely colored my view of the entire thing, but as it stands, it was a complete waste of a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any fan of SVH could come up with something a million times better than this dreck. Wasn't there an original ghostwriter available? You know, someone who might actually know the world and characters, and have the skill to develop them both in a believable manner?
The writing is rather clunky and purple-ly, often managing both at the same time. Redundancy abounds, editing mistakes, including wrong names and inconsistencies to previous events in SVH-iverse, and lots of use of the words "like" and "so", more-so in Jessica's narrative than anywhere else, which was really, really, so, like, irritating. Like, really. Ms. Pascal must have had a thesaurus at the ready, because there were big words awkwardly thrown into the narrative. While I appreciate authors utilizing lesser known or used words, some just don't blend well with the rest of the text and they pop-out unflatteringly. The structure needed fine-tuning and tenses were oddly used to differentiate the flashbacks from present day.
To put it succinctly, the writing isn't great and neither is the storyline, what there is of it. This was a bizarre read even by Sweet Valley standards and an insult to fans. Seriously, does Francine Pascal hate this universe and its readers? I think I'll stick to the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/58723-sweet-valley-high">Sweet Valley High</a> series and make up my own stories about what happened afterward.
Slightly spoiler-ish lesson learned from this book:
<spoiler>Betrayal is okay as long as it's "Twu Luv."</spoiler>
Second lesson learned:
Everything always turns up fucking sunshine and roses and unicorns and lollipops for the worst person (or people) in the end.
I'd like to leave you with another winning description,
<blockquote>"There were no tears, but her mouth was twisted in a silent sob."
-page 17</blockquote>
<u>A thought a few hours after having finished this book:</u>
Maybe another "sequel" will eventually come out and it'll begin with Elizabeth waking up from the nightmare that is this book and we'll get the real ten years later story. Ahh, sweet dreams.
<u>Update: April 26, 2011:</u>
Oh yes, always good to blame the fans/readers for not liking their terrible book. By pointing out minor, petty reasons, I might add. <b>Warning:</b> book spoilers in article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.