Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The White Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #2) in Books
Dec 19, 2018
Not quite sure why I decided to read this as the only other book I've read by Gregory was The Other Boleyn Girl, which I thought was pretty dreadful. I suppose I find it difficult to keep away from anything connected with The Wars of the Roses; I certainly found that I'd read almost every book listed in the bibliography and could have recommended a few more that might have been beneficial for the author to have perused.....
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
5 years after the release of the first Lego Movie, these lovable characters are back with a brand new adventure. I had such a blast with the original so I was interested to see how they’d continue the story.
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Lady Killers: Deadly Women Throughout History in Books
Sep 3, 2018
I received an uncorrected proof of a true-crime book about female serial killers by Tori Telfer called Lady Killers: Deadly Women Throughout History to peruse and review on Goodreads and Amazon. The book won’t released until October 10, 2017, by Harper Perennial, and I am so thrilled to be one of the few who get to read it first.
Some of the murderers/murderesses have been discussed on My Favorite Murder by Georgia and Karen but some are brand new to me.
From the back cover:
When you think of serial killers throughout history the names that come to mind are ones like Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy but what about Tilly Klimek, Moulay Hassen and Kate Bender? The narrative we’re comfortable with is the one where women are the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrators, in fact, serial killers are thought to be so universally, overwhelmingly male that in 1998, FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood infamously declared in a homicide conference that, “There are no female serial killers.”
Lady Killers, based on the popular online series that appeared on Jezebel and The Hairpin, disputes that claim and offers 14 gruesome examples as evidence. Though largely forgotten by history, female serial killers such as Erzsebet Bathory, Nannie Doss, Mary Ann Cotton, and Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova rival their male counterparts and cunning, cruelty, and appetite for destruction.
Each chapter explores the crimes and history of a different subject and then proceeds to unpack her legacy and her portrayal in the media, as well as the stereotypes and sexist clichés that inevitably surround her. The first book to examine female serial killers through a feminist lens with a witty and dryly humorous tone lady killers dismisses explanations (she was hormonal, she did it for love, a man made her do it) and tired tropes (she was a femme fatale, a black widow, a witch) delving into the complex reality of a female aggression and predation. Featuring 14 illustrations from Dame Darcy, Lady Killers is a blood curdling, insightful, and irresistible journey into the heart of darkness.
Tori Telfer is a full-time freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon, Vice, Jezebel, The Hairpin, Good Magazine, Bustle, barnesandnoble.com, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. She is a Pushcart nominee and the recipient of the Edwin L. Shuman Fiction Award. She has written, directed, and produced independent plays on both Chicago and Los Angeles.
The author’s official website is http://www.toridotgov.com.
The illustrator’s website is http://www.damedarcy.com
Table of Contents
The Blood Countess: Erzsebet Bathory
The Giggling Grandma: Nannie Doss
The Worst Woman on Earth: Lizzie Halliday
Devil in the Shape of a Saint: Elizabeth Ridgeway
Vipers: Raya and Sakina
The Wretched Woman: Mary Ann Cotton
The Tormentor: Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova
Iceberg Anna: Anna Marie Hahn
The Nightingale: Oum-El-Hassen
High Priestess of the Bluebeard Clique: Tillie Klimek
Sorceress of Kilkenny: Alice Kyteler
Beautiful Throat Cutter: Kate Bender
The Angel Makers of Nagyrev
Queen of Poisoners: Marie-Madeleine, the Marquis de Brinvilliers
It looked as if The Angel Makers of Nagyrev wasn’t included in the texts, though it is listed in the contents and notes. However, they are on the pages following the chapter and heading Beautiful Throat Cutter. I had mistakenly thought it wasn't included before. Hopefully, that oversight and will be corrected in the final copy. There were a few punctuation errors in the book and I had intended to leave them in the copy above but allowed Grammarly to correct them without thinking. But that's why they pay the editors the big bucks.
Needless to say, I can’t wait to delve deep in this book and read my little Murderino heart out. I am nearly through the book and will update with a review once I have completed it.
#SSDGM
#Stay Sexy Don't Get Murdered
#myfavoritemurder #murderino #toritelfer #harperperennial #harpercollins #damedarcy
#books #bookstagram #mfmpodcast #georgiahardstark #karenkilgariff #serialkiller #truecrime #murder #killers #ladykiller #ladykillers #serialkillers
Some of the murderers/murderesses have been discussed on My Favorite Murder by Georgia and Karen but some are brand new to me.
From the back cover:
When you think of serial killers throughout history the names that come to mind are ones like Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy but what about Tilly Klimek, Moulay Hassen and Kate Bender? The narrative we’re comfortable with is the one where women are the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrators, in fact, serial killers are thought to be so universally, overwhelmingly male that in 1998, FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood infamously declared in a homicide conference that, “There are no female serial killers.”
Lady Killers, based on the popular online series that appeared on Jezebel and The Hairpin, disputes that claim and offers 14 gruesome examples as evidence. Though largely forgotten by history, female serial killers such as Erzsebet Bathory, Nannie Doss, Mary Ann Cotton, and Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova rival their male counterparts and cunning, cruelty, and appetite for destruction.
Each chapter explores the crimes and history of a different subject and then proceeds to unpack her legacy and her portrayal in the media, as well as the stereotypes and sexist clichés that inevitably surround her. The first book to examine female serial killers through a feminist lens with a witty and dryly humorous tone lady killers dismisses explanations (she was hormonal, she did it for love, a man made her do it) and tired tropes (she was a femme fatale, a black widow, a witch) delving into the complex reality of a female aggression and predation. Featuring 14 illustrations from Dame Darcy, Lady Killers is a blood curdling, insightful, and irresistible journey into the heart of darkness.
Tori Telfer is a full-time freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon, Vice, Jezebel, The Hairpin, Good Magazine, Bustle, barnesandnoble.com, Chicago Magazine, and elsewhere. She is a Pushcart nominee and the recipient of the Edwin L. Shuman Fiction Award. She has written, directed, and produced independent plays on both Chicago and Los Angeles.
The author’s official website is http://www.toridotgov.com.
The illustrator’s website is http://www.damedarcy.com
Table of Contents
The Blood Countess: Erzsebet Bathory
The Giggling Grandma: Nannie Doss
The Worst Woman on Earth: Lizzie Halliday
Devil in the Shape of a Saint: Elizabeth Ridgeway
Vipers: Raya and Sakina
The Wretched Woman: Mary Ann Cotton
The Tormentor: Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova
Iceberg Anna: Anna Marie Hahn
The Nightingale: Oum-El-Hassen
High Priestess of the Bluebeard Clique: Tillie Klimek
Sorceress of Kilkenny: Alice Kyteler
Beautiful Throat Cutter: Kate Bender
The Angel Makers of Nagyrev
Queen of Poisoners: Marie-Madeleine, the Marquis de Brinvilliers
It looked as if The Angel Makers of Nagyrev wasn’t included in the texts, though it is listed in the contents and notes. However, they are on the pages following the chapter and heading Beautiful Throat Cutter. I had mistakenly thought it wasn't included before. Hopefully, that oversight and will be corrected in the final copy. There were a few punctuation errors in the book and I had intended to leave them in the copy above but allowed Grammarly to correct them without thinking. But that's why they pay the editors the big bucks.
Needless to say, I can’t wait to delve deep in this book and read my little Murderino heart out. I am nearly through the book and will update with a review once I have completed it.
#SSDGM
#Stay Sexy Don't Get Murdered
#myfavoritemurder #murderino #toritelfer #harperperennial #harpercollins #damedarcy
#books #bookstagram #mfmpodcast #georgiahardstark #karenkilgariff #serialkiller #truecrime #murder #killers #ladykiller #ladykillers #serialkillers
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Felipe (17 KP) rated Chaplin (1992) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
A modern tragedy meant to be one of the greats
Contains spoilers, click to show
Richard Attenborough delivers another masterpiece of cinematic biography and is a worthy successor to Ghandi. The structure of the film is told as a flashback while Charlie Chaplin is writing his autobiography with a fictional editor that does not exist. We see for the first time the flaws of who Chaplin is as a person and we see him confront his past in a way that is painful not unlike how it is painful when we relive moments in our lives we would rather choose to forget. However, the success of the film is how it strips the illusion of who Chaplin was and presents to us a person who is tragically flawed but who is unbale to appreciate his own genius. An example is when Chaplin's version of the invention of the Tramp is seen for what he imagined it to be an idealized moment in which the character is calling to him except for what it really was, We see the reality of the movies during this time; a hectic spur of the moment improvised invention drawn from real life. Yet we see Chaplin as the midwife to this new artform the movies and we see him develop it for what it is, the highest expression of art that stirs our imagination and makes us believe anything is possible. We even cry during Chaplin's moments of personal tragedy; the insanity and loss of his mother; repeated failed marriages; the death of his best friend, Douglas Fairbanks and finally his tragic and painful exile from America the only place he knew as home all taking place in the backdrop of the invention and evolution of cinema. However, I feel that in the end Chaplin is the one that comes out triumphant. In the last moments of the movie we see how Chaplin despairs that he feels that he has been forgotten and made irrelevant by the changing times; he feels that the weight of not only his age but the weight of the world on his shoulders and yet we see that everything he believes himself to be is completely wrong when Hollywood bestows on him the greatest honor which is not only the special Oscar but also a standing ovation. His final triumph is to be made a knight by Queen Elizabeth II, we are truly made to see that although flawed he is triumphant in the end.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)