Search
Search results
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated Things a Bright Girl Can Do in Books
Feb 10, 2018
THINGS A BRIGHT GIRL CAN DO by SALLY NICHOLLS
In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst founded a new organisation called 'The Woman's Social and Political Union’ because she like many other women believed that they should be equal to men and be allowed a vote!
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Notable Woman: The Romantic Journals of Jean Lucey Pratt in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: <i>A Notable Woman</i>.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in <i>Winnie the Pooh</i>), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
<i>A Notable Woman</i> gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: <i>A Notable Woman</i>.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in <i>Winnie the Pooh</i>), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
<i>A Notable Woman</i> gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Louise (64 KP) rated And I Darken (The Conqueror's Saga #1) in Books
Jul 2, 2018
First I would like to say a massive thank you to Goodreads as I won myself a copy on one of their giveaways( Aren’t they great!)
And I Darken is a new Historical fiction/Re-telling of Vlad the Impaler but gender swapped. Goodreads have it listed as being a fantasy, but there is no magic or any paranormal goings on whatsoever…glad we got that cleared up.
Our story follows Ladislav (Lada) and Radu Dragwyla the descendants of Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. Vlad is a vile human being and uses his own children for bargaining with the Ottoman Empire, there lives are at risk if he does not keep to the treaties terms. Living in the Ottoman Empire is risky for Lada and Radu, Lada could easily be married off to some suitor for allegiance or killed whichever is easier for the Sultan. Running the grounds they bump into a young boy the same age as them, only to find that he is the Sultan’s son Mehmed. Mehmed is a lonely boy with only his tutors for company so he befriends them both and shares all his education and time with them, which in turn takes them out of the spotlight.
Lada is a very strong character, she is a force to be reckoned with. She is brutal,fierce and just a total badass throughout the book. Being born a woman is one almighty struggle to be taken seriously in the 1400’s. She knows that she is the rightful heir of Wallachia at the young age of 11. She wants to impress her father with her fighting skills and there is a point when she thinks she has, but the only thoughts her father has is marrying her off to a suitor and being a dutiful wife. Lada is very family orientated and has a very unique relationship with her brother Radu but she will never show any emotion as this is a sign of weakness and she is perceived as a cold-hearted bitch.
Radu was always a disappointment to his father, weak,cowardly and clinging to his nursemaids side infuriated Vlad. Radu was the more emotional of siblings, even though he was not great at fighting he had a devious and cunning mind that made him equally as dangerous as Lada.
My feelings towards the characters changed a lot throughout the book at first I thought Lada was just a psychotic child but realised she is trying to prove herself as being fierce. Radu he was very sweet throughout the book and always wanted his sister to just open up and tell him she loved him and for him to tell her his secrets and feelings. The main point is that they are flawed and this is what makes characters great.
Mehmed just annoyed me and he got in the way of Lada’s plans.
The book does contain romance, a love triangle where no one expresses their love for anyone as they are too scared of the consequences or that it will stop them from their goals in life. So the romance is frustrating to say the least.
This book has a lot of political intrigue,so be prepared for wars,treaties,soldiers and their ranks. This is Historical fiction but as in the author’s notes at the end it is not accurate and a lot is made up. Religion is also touched upon, mostly Islam with Christianity but it’s not too in your face or info dumping. The book is nearly 500 pages long! I felt it could have been shorter. I enjoyed the relationship between Radu and Lada,it was a very different set-up from what we are used to. This did take me a little longer to read as in places it was very slow and I found myself getting bored.
This book covers themes such as sibling rivalry, relationships, families, romance, feminism, sexism and politics
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1476160834l/22817331.jpg"; width="120" height="180"/>
Now I Rise is the second installment of the And I Darken saga which is due to be released in June 2017 which I will be reading as I am interested in what is going to happen next with Lada.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
And I Darken is a new Historical fiction/Re-telling of Vlad the Impaler but gender swapped. Goodreads have it listed as being a fantasy, but there is no magic or any paranormal goings on whatsoever…glad we got that cleared up.
Our story follows Ladislav (Lada) and Radu Dragwyla the descendants of Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. Vlad is a vile human being and uses his own children for bargaining with the Ottoman Empire, there lives are at risk if he does not keep to the treaties terms. Living in the Ottoman Empire is risky for Lada and Radu, Lada could easily be married off to some suitor for allegiance or killed whichever is easier for the Sultan. Running the grounds they bump into a young boy the same age as them, only to find that he is the Sultan’s son Mehmed. Mehmed is a lonely boy with only his tutors for company so he befriends them both and shares all his education and time with them, which in turn takes them out of the spotlight.
Lada is a very strong character, she is a force to be reckoned with. She is brutal,fierce and just a total badass throughout the book. Being born a woman is one almighty struggle to be taken seriously in the 1400’s. She knows that she is the rightful heir of Wallachia at the young age of 11. She wants to impress her father with her fighting skills and there is a point when she thinks she has, but the only thoughts her father has is marrying her off to a suitor and being a dutiful wife. Lada is very family orientated and has a very unique relationship with her brother Radu but she will never show any emotion as this is a sign of weakness and she is perceived as a cold-hearted bitch.
Radu was always a disappointment to his father, weak,cowardly and clinging to his nursemaids side infuriated Vlad. Radu was the more emotional of siblings, even though he was not great at fighting he had a devious and cunning mind that made him equally as dangerous as Lada.
My feelings towards the characters changed a lot throughout the book at first I thought Lada was just a psychotic child but realised she is trying to prove herself as being fierce. Radu he was very sweet throughout the book and always wanted his sister to just open up and tell him she loved him and for him to tell her his secrets and feelings. The main point is that they are flawed and this is what makes characters great.
Mehmed just annoyed me and he got in the way of Lada’s plans.
The book does contain romance, a love triangle where no one expresses their love for anyone as they are too scared of the consequences or that it will stop them from their goals in life. So the romance is frustrating to say the least.
This book has a lot of political intrigue,so be prepared for wars,treaties,soldiers and their ranks. This is Historical fiction but as in the author’s notes at the end it is not accurate and a lot is made up. Religion is also touched upon, mostly Islam with Christianity but it’s not too in your face or info dumping. The book is nearly 500 pages long! I felt it could have been shorter. I enjoyed the relationship between Radu and Lada,it was a very different set-up from what we are used to. This did take me a little longer to read as in places it was very slow and I found myself getting bored.
This book covers themes such as sibling rivalry, relationships, families, romance, feminism, sexism and politics
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1476160834l/22817331.jpg"; width="120" height="180"/>
Now I Rise is the second installment of the And I Darken saga which is due to be released in June 2017 which I will be reading as I am interested in what is going to happen next with Lada.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Cold Iron (Masters & Mages #1) in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Elaborate prose and an unsettling amount of "wait and see" damaged my enjoyment
This book feels like your standard coming-of-age fantasy - young man from a simple village finds himself in the big city destined for greatness and surrounds himself with strong watchers while he grows into his potential. It is that and it is so much more.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
The story that is told is how Aranthur, this young man (selected from his village to attend the big city university) finds himself in the midst of conflict and significant events in the empire's changing status. The idea of fate dictating that this one man would be at the centre of things (see Wheel of Time) is not one that is explored here. While it is hinted at (he is frequently told off for ending up in unusual circumstances), it isn't overly laboured. Nobody tells him he was chosen or anything like that. Instead he gradually learns that he has found himself at the centre of political intrigue, plotting, counter-plotting, conspiracies and war.
This book is not about Aranthur. He is just the focal point of the book, the story is so much bigger than him. This meant it did at times become a little hard to take that he always just happened to meet the right person, go to the right place at the right time in order to witness or participate in a number of significant plot events. In hindsight, this is largely all explained as some hidden agenda and him being put in those places to make those decisions but at the time it was a little jarring.
The narrative is more akin to Robert Jordan than many contemporary writers - so much overly elaborate description of people, places, clothes, horses, weapons etc. At times this adds to the reading experience but I found it over-used and made the book feel like a much longer read (I was shocked when I found out it was just under 450 pages - it reads like around 700). Also, so much of the narrative is in either italics (to show it is a magic/majick/magik delete as appropriate) or is in some odd variation of French ("gonne" for gun, "quaveh" for coffee etc) to become irritating. At times the book is more like a decent fantasy tale or conspiracy and intrigue which has been edited by a historical re-enactment nut. Given this is fictional and the world is the author's to do with as he wishes, forcing some historical accuracy at the expense of reader enjoyment seemed an odd decision to make.
The magical system seems fairly standard fantasy fayre, albeit it is not described or explored in any detail, people just suddenly do things which haven't previously been mentioned. A large aspect of the book is Aranthur's being chosen to translate an ancient text to decode the magical secrets hidden there. I think in all he decodes three of these, and uses them, but there is no mention of them until he has to use them in a fight. It could just be that I have been reading a lot of LitRPG recently, where every spell is described in intimate detail and its uses are discussed way in advance of being needed in combat, but I felt like it was something of an afterthought or rescue from a plot dead-end ("oh sod it, say he done a magic").
While I did enjoy this book on the whole, the narrative style and the focus being on clothes rather than describing the interesting aspects of the world were to its detriment. Also, the book is written as two "books" (chapters), the first "book" covers around 80% and all in one long chapter without breaks. To my mind, ending there would have sufficed. The final 20% in "book 2" felt like part epilogue, part sequel and should maybe have been split as such.
My advice to anyone reading this, is to suspend disbelief that little bit further and trust that things do largely get explained satisfactorily before the end.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tropico 6 in Video Games
Aug 14, 2019
I used to spend my time dreaming of what it would be like to live in a tropical paradise. No concerns in the world except for when my next umbrella drink was to arrive and how long I could nap before flipping over and beginning the whole process again. The leisurely island lifestyle seemed to be the perfect escape from the non-stop chaotic life that has become my own. Getting my hands-on Tropico 6, developer Limbic Entertainment’s latest installment of the popular city-builder series, quickly turned my peaceful dreams into a hectic, fast-paced adventure. Now instead of wondering what the difference between SPF 15 and SPF 30 in my sunblock are, I was forced to quell revolutions, ensure that my people had enough entertainment and housing, and promising improvement in healthcare…all in the hopes of getting re-elected and I loved every minute of it.
Tropico 6 takes the familiar city builder game and turns it on its head a bit. You begin your life as El Presidente with the ability to customize the look and feel of your miniature ruler. Not only dealing with his/her physical attributes, but also defining their personality type. This provides special in-game bonuses which can affect your influence with the super-powers or even the internal factions themselves. Your next option is to design what your palace will look like, everything from roof-top holographic images of yourself, to the type of wall that surrounds your palace. While these are really nothing more than decorative facades on which you will build your spanning empire, it’s these little touches where Tropico really shines.
For those who haven’t played Tropico before, there is a two-hour tutorial that takes you through not only the basics, but some of the advanced concepts as well. It introduces the player to not only specific buildings, but also some of the more in-depth features that are provided. Concepts such as firing an individual from a building and closing the opening job requisition or identifying rebels and putting down uprisings are all covered in detail here. The tutorial however barely scratches the surface as to all the things that can be done. Thankfully Tropico 6 includes fifteen story missions that take you through numerous game concepts and challenges to build upon what the tutorial has taught you.
There are essentially two ways one can play Tropico 6, there are the story missions as well as the sandbox mode. While players will likely be quick to want to jump into Sandbox mode and begin cultivating their own island, there are compelling reasons to play through the story missions first. The story missions are not truly connected to one another, and while you must complete several to unlock them all, there isn’t an order in which you need to play them. If you go in order, the game will take you through the various “Era’s” that are new to the series. Starting with Colonial times where you regularly need to appease the crown until you can raise enough revolutionaries (or money) to claim your independence. Working your way through the World Wars (which roughly cover the events between World War I and World War II), into the Cold war and finally Modern Times. Each of the Eras unlock access to specific technology and buildings, ensuring that each Era provides a unique challenge to overcoming certain obstacles. Each story mission tasks you with a specific goal and places several obstacles in your way. Everything from claiming independence in the first mission, to going after the seedy underbelly of crime and bringing down a notorious kingpin. The story missions themselves last anywhere from one to several hours, ensuring plenty of game play in each one.
Tropico 6 brings a lot of new concepts and gameplay to the series. The game now takes place on a series of islands interconnected with docks and bridges. It’s easy to focus on your main island only to forget your others, and some missions will task you with specific goals that can only be created outside the main island. It’s a good introduction to thinking on a wider scale. Additionally, you can build a pirate cove that allow you to send pirates on raids. These raids involve everything from “rescuing” educated people or stealing wonders from around the world, like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. A new character known simply as “The Broker” provides opportunities to raise cash for your swiss bank account. The swiss bank account is a private account for El Presidente’ and allows him to purchase items from the Broker. These can be anything from blue prints that unlock buildings at a cheaper price, or the opportunity to automatically complete a demand without having to do the grunt work behind it. Election speeches also make their return to Tropico 6, elections are held every ten years to ensure you are keeping the people in your island nation happy. Lose an election and you lose the game, fairly straight forward. One opportunity to sway your people is to craft election speeches from the four categories. These include acknowledging an issue (like entertainment or health care), praising one of the four factions that exist on Tropico, blaming a super power (Axis or Allies) for the current state of affairs and finally making a promise to address a specific issue. Be warned however, that each of these choices can hold severe consequences and note that a promise to address a concern means you’ll be focusing on that before the next election.
Each of the folks who inhabit the island are individuals. You can literally select any person walking down the street and identify who they are, how they are leaning in the upcoming election, what political party they belong to and even where they work. If someone is a political rival you can bribe them to choose your side, if a particular set of rebels are causing issues you can have them arrested or locked up in an asylum. You can even execute any individual you want; however, this will have lasting consequences. The amount of detail is staggering; however, Tropico 6 does an excellent job of allowing you to be as micro managing as you want to be. While you can certainly go in and fire individuals from the various businesses that pop up, you certainly don’t have to.
Graphically Tropico 6 is a spectacle in itself. Everything from the waves as they slowly crash upon the shoreline, to the awe-inspiring sunsets. It’s certainly one of the most beautiful city builders around. Each building is unique enough to identify it easily and each has its own unique flavor all to itself. Even with all of this, I never encountered any hiccups in performance, and load screens are pretty much left to new games. Its soundtrack has a distinctive island flair to it, and while the longer you play the more repetitive it becomes, I never felt the urge to simply mute it. In fact, I found myself humming some of the tunes while doing chores around the house…yes it can get in your head like that.
Tropico 6 does have some flaws, but nothing truly game breaking. The road construction tool, while doing it’s very best to identify the best path you wish to take, will sometimes go a bit crazy. Spaces between buildings which should allow for careful road placement will be blocked for unknown reasons, which can force you to destroy existing buildings if you haven’t planned for expansion appropriately enough. With so much to do, some of the specific tools or buildings can be a bit difficult to find, in particular once you “acquire” a world wonder it took me several attempts to locate where you can go to actually place it. Again, nothing that stops the game in it’s tracks, and certainly some things that can easily be patched in later releases of the game.
Tropico 6 is all about freedom, the freedom to rule your tiny island kingdom the way you want. Well… at least the way you want as long as you can appease the numerous factions and ensure you get re-elected in the next general elections. You are free to do as much or as little as you want, and you are free to dig in as deep as any city builder type game allows you to go. The included stories ensure that you have at least 40-50 hours of defined content, but it’s the limitless playability of the sandbox setting where the game truly shines. The game isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close as city-builder games can get these days. It’s mix of humor, city management, and that one-more turn itch will keep you playing long after you told yourself you should go to bed. Long live El Presidente’! Viva Tropico!
What I liked: Variety of Story Missions, Excellent Tutorial, Amazing visuals
What I liked less: Road tool seems a bit finicky, some items are difficult to locate
Tropico 6 takes the familiar city builder game and turns it on its head a bit. You begin your life as El Presidente with the ability to customize the look and feel of your miniature ruler. Not only dealing with his/her physical attributes, but also defining their personality type. This provides special in-game bonuses which can affect your influence with the super-powers or even the internal factions themselves. Your next option is to design what your palace will look like, everything from roof-top holographic images of yourself, to the type of wall that surrounds your palace. While these are really nothing more than decorative facades on which you will build your spanning empire, it’s these little touches where Tropico really shines.
For those who haven’t played Tropico before, there is a two-hour tutorial that takes you through not only the basics, but some of the advanced concepts as well. It introduces the player to not only specific buildings, but also some of the more in-depth features that are provided. Concepts such as firing an individual from a building and closing the opening job requisition or identifying rebels and putting down uprisings are all covered in detail here. The tutorial however barely scratches the surface as to all the things that can be done. Thankfully Tropico 6 includes fifteen story missions that take you through numerous game concepts and challenges to build upon what the tutorial has taught you.
There are essentially two ways one can play Tropico 6, there are the story missions as well as the sandbox mode. While players will likely be quick to want to jump into Sandbox mode and begin cultivating their own island, there are compelling reasons to play through the story missions first. The story missions are not truly connected to one another, and while you must complete several to unlock them all, there isn’t an order in which you need to play them. If you go in order, the game will take you through the various “Era’s” that are new to the series. Starting with Colonial times where you regularly need to appease the crown until you can raise enough revolutionaries (or money) to claim your independence. Working your way through the World Wars (which roughly cover the events between World War I and World War II), into the Cold war and finally Modern Times. Each of the Eras unlock access to specific technology and buildings, ensuring that each Era provides a unique challenge to overcoming certain obstacles. Each story mission tasks you with a specific goal and places several obstacles in your way. Everything from claiming independence in the first mission, to going after the seedy underbelly of crime and bringing down a notorious kingpin. The story missions themselves last anywhere from one to several hours, ensuring plenty of game play in each one.
Tropico 6 brings a lot of new concepts and gameplay to the series. The game now takes place on a series of islands interconnected with docks and bridges. It’s easy to focus on your main island only to forget your others, and some missions will task you with specific goals that can only be created outside the main island. It’s a good introduction to thinking on a wider scale. Additionally, you can build a pirate cove that allow you to send pirates on raids. These raids involve everything from “rescuing” educated people or stealing wonders from around the world, like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. A new character known simply as “The Broker” provides opportunities to raise cash for your swiss bank account. The swiss bank account is a private account for El Presidente’ and allows him to purchase items from the Broker. These can be anything from blue prints that unlock buildings at a cheaper price, or the opportunity to automatically complete a demand without having to do the grunt work behind it. Election speeches also make their return to Tropico 6, elections are held every ten years to ensure you are keeping the people in your island nation happy. Lose an election and you lose the game, fairly straight forward. One opportunity to sway your people is to craft election speeches from the four categories. These include acknowledging an issue (like entertainment or health care), praising one of the four factions that exist on Tropico, blaming a super power (Axis or Allies) for the current state of affairs and finally making a promise to address a specific issue. Be warned however, that each of these choices can hold severe consequences and note that a promise to address a concern means you’ll be focusing on that before the next election.
Each of the folks who inhabit the island are individuals. You can literally select any person walking down the street and identify who they are, how they are leaning in the upcoming election, what political party they belong to and even where they work. If someone is a political rival you can bribe them to choose your side, if a particular set of rebels are causing issues you can have them arrested or locked up in an asylum. You can even execute any individual you want; however, this will have lasting consequences. The amount of detail is staggering; however, Tropico 6 does an excellent job of allowing you to be as micro managing as you want to be. While you can certainly go in and fire individuals from the various businesses that pop up, you certainly don’t have to.
Graphically Tropico 6 is a spectacle in itself. Everything from the waves as they slowly crash upon the shoreline, to the awe-inspiring sunsets. It’s certainly one of the most beautiful city builders around. Each building is unique enough to identify it easily and each has its own unique flavor all to itself. Even with all of this, I never encountered any hiccups in performance, and load screens are pretty much left to new games. Its soundtrack has a distinctive island flair to it, and while the longer you play the more repetitive it becomes, I never felt the urge to simply mute it. In fact, I found myself humming some of the tunes while doing chores around the house…yes it can get in your head like that.
Tropico 6 does have some flaws, but nothing truly game breaking. The road construction tool, while doing it’s very best to identify the best path you wish to take, will sometimes go a bit crazy. Spaces between buildings which should allow for careful road placement will be blocked for unknown reasons, which can force you to destroy existing buildings if you haven’t planned for expansion appropriately enough. With so much to do, some of the specific tools or buildings can be a bit difficult to find, in particular once you “acquire” a world wonder it took me several attempts to locate where you can go to actually place it. Again, nothing that stops the game in it’s tracks, and certainly some things that can easily be patched in later releases of the game.
Tropico 6 is all about freedom, the freedom to rule your tiny island kingdom the way you want. Well… at least the way you want as long as you can appease the numerous factions and ensure you get re-elected in the next general elections. You are free to do as much or as little as you want, and you are free to dig in as deep as any city builder type game allows you to go. The included stories ensure that you have at least 40-50 hours of defined content, but it’s the limitless playability of the sandbox setting where the game truly shines. The game isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close as city-builder games can get these days. It’s mix of humor, city management, and that one-more turn itch will keep you playing long after you told yourself you should go to bed. Long live El Presidente’! Viva Tropico!
What I liked: Variety of Story Missions, Excellent Tutorial, Amazing visuals
What I liked less: Road tool seems a bit finicky, some items are difficult to locate