Search
Search results
Nadya R (9 KP) rated The Handmaid's Tale in Books
Jul 2, 2018
"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum"
Strange book.
I really wanted to like it and I kinda do.
Its way too biblical for me. With all these references to different Books connected with the Bible - the Bible stories are not really my thing. Yeah, I know that this is the point - the Religious takes over the world. But the author brings it too far than needed.
The story doesn’t have any logical order. It sounds like a diary of somebody who lost their common sense. All this illogical sentences. Like a flashes of memory in between the current situation. Lack of direct speech - there is no distinction between the narrator and the different characters. It’s so senseless in some points that I have to go back and to read the past couple of pages all over again so I can get the line out.
It's is situated in not-so-far future and it’s told by a woman with no name. All women are named after the family who owns them. In this case our narrator is OfFred - owned by a commander Fred’s family. The new government, that had risen, is proclaiming no rights for the women. Their only purpose is to give birth to a healthy babies. They don’t need money, jobs, books, pens or other things that we are taking for granted in our lives. They don’t need them to deliver babies, so they don’t need them at all.
"Tell, rather than write, because I have nothing to write with and writing is in any case forbidden.
But if it's a story, even in my head.
I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself. There's always someone else.
Even when there is no one."
The Republic of Gilead, as I said, uses religion to control their lives. Every atrocity they do is justified by the Bible. The Bible has all the answers.
The story line is going around OfFred’s inner fights, her struggle to make the right choices, her dreams to be free again and to be with her child and her husband again. Along with her thoughts she shows us what is like to be a Handmaid. Her daily routine, the Rituals and all these small things that distract her from the reality.
"You can only be jealous of someone who has something you think you ought to have yourself"
Personaly, I don’t like the book that much. It’s senseless and not that easy to read. Not because of the topic, but the way it’s written. The shortage of direct speech took away the movement of the book. I know it should look like a diary, but even in the diaries, the difference between the narrator and others is shown in proper way. Probably I will need a second read to fully understand it. But for now the book left a big mess in my head.
"A man is just a woman's strategy for making other women."
Strange book.
I really wanted to like it and I kinda do.
Its way too biblical for me. With all these references to different Books connected with the Bible - the Bible stories are not really my thing. Yeah, I know that this is the point - the Religious takes over the world. But the author brings it too far than needed.
The story doesn’t have any logical order. It sounds like a diary of somebody who lost their common sense. All this illogical sentences. Like a flashes of memory in between the current situation. Lack of direct speech - there is no distinction between the narrator and the different characters. It’s so senseless in some points that I have to go back and to read the past couple of pages all over again so I can get the line out.
It's is situated in not-so-far future and it’s told by a woman with no name. All women are named after the family who owns them. In this case our narrator is OfFred - owned by a commander Fred’s family. The new government, that had risen, is proclaiming no rights for the women. Their only purpose is to give birth to a healthy babies. They don’t need money, jobs, books, pens or other things that we are taking for granted in our lives. They don’t need them to deliver babies, so they don’t need them at all.
"Tell, rather than write, because I have nothing to write with and writing is in any case forbidden.
But if it's a story, even in my head.
I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself. There's always someone else.
Even when there is no one."
The Republic of Gilead, as I said, uses religion to control their lives. Every atrocity they do is justified by the Bible. The Bible has all the answers.
The story line is going around OfFred’s inner fights, her struggle to make the right choices, her dreams to be free again and to be with her child and her husband again. Along with her thoughts she shows us what is like to be a Handmaid. Her daily routine, the Rituals and all these small things that distract her from the reality.
"You can only be jealous of someone who has something you think you ought to have yourself"
Personaly, I don’t like the book that much. It’s senseless and not that easy to read. Not because of the topic, but the way it’s written. The shortage of direct speech took away the movement of the book. I know it should look like a diary, but even in the diaries, the difference between the narrator and others is shown in proper way. Probably I will need a second read to fully understand it. But for now the book left a big mess in my head.
"A man is just a woman's strategy for making other women."
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Nun (2018) in Movies
Sep 6, 2018 (Updated Sep 7, 2018)
Disappointing
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring movies. The original is one of my favourite scary movies, and while I enjoyed the sequel, for me it just didn't live up to the very high bar set by the first. Creepy doll Annabelle from the first movie landed her own disappointing outing, followed by a surprisingly enjoyable sequel/prequel in Annabelle: Creation. Now, next up in The Conjuring Universe is the turn of The Nun. After a brief, but very effective appearance in The Conjuring 2, The Nun movie looks to expand the universe even further, providing us with an insight into how the demon nun came to be.
We're in Romania, 1952. A large, remote, creepy looking convent is having trouble trying to contain something dark and evil, resulting in one of the nuns hanging herself. The body is discovered by Frenchie, a local farmer bringing supplies from the nearby village. When word gets back to the Vatican, priest Father Burke (Demián Bichir) is sent, along with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate.
They learn that the convent was built in the middle ages by the Duke of St Carta who, while being possessed, also created a gateway from hell somewhere within its basement. Religious figures were able to seal the gateway using the blood of Christ, but during the second world war bombings resulted in the seal being broken, releasing the demon Valak. Since then, the nuns have engaged in constant prayer in an attempt to keep evil at bay.
As you'd expect, the whole tone of this movie is very dark, and very gloomy. It takes a while to get going, and there is nothing of interest to keep you hooked. Aside from Sister Irene, the characters are dull, and occasional attempts at humour fall flat. The tense expectation of chills and scares soon fizzles out when you're realise that there really aren't any. Just plenty of prolonged periods of quietness, followed by LOUD NOISE!! Which may work for some people, but I just found it annoying.
The characters wander around dark corridors, playing on the whole creepy castle vibe, and shadowy nuns are everywhere. Valak himself occasionally appears, but it's nothing more than an attempt at a jump scare. The whole thing just seems like such a wasted opportunity and I found myself looking at my watch even during the climactic scenes where they're trying to seal the gateway once more. Not good for a movie that's only 96 minutes long.
The one thing I did like is how they managed to link everything back to The Conjuring movies, in particular the opening scenes of the original movie where the Warrens are giving their lecture, and the consequences that brings for the rest of the movies. Aside from that I just found the whole thing disappointing.
We're in Romania, 1952. A large, remote, creepy looking convent is having trouble trying to contain something dark and evil, resulting in one of the nuns hanging herself. The body is discovered by Frenchie, a local farmer bringing supplies from the nearby village. When word gets back to the Vatican, priest Father Burke (Demián Bichir) is sent, along with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate.
They learn that the convent was built in the middle ages by the Duke of St Carta who, while being possessed, also created a gateway from hell somewhere within its basement. Religious figures were able to seal the gateway using the blood of Christ, but during the second world war bombings resulted in the seal being broken, releasing the demon Valak. Since then, the nuns have engaged in constant prayer in an attempt to keep evil at bay.
As you'd expect, the whole tone of this movie is very dark, and very gloomy. It takes a while to get going, and there is nothing of interest to keep you hooked. Aside from Sister Irene, the characters are dull, and occasional attempts at humour fall flat. The tense expectation of chills and scares soon fizzles out when you're realise that there really aren't any. Just plenty of prolonged periods of quietness, followed by LOUD NOISE!! Which may work for some people, but I just found it annoying.
The characters wander around dark corridors, playing on the whole creepy castle vibe, and shadowy nuns are everywhere. Valak himself occasionally appears, but it's nothing more than an attempt at a jump scare. The whole thing just seems like such a wasted opportunity and I found myself looking at my watch even during the climactic scenes where they're trying to seal the gateway once more. Not good for a movie that's only 96 minutes long.
The one thing I did like is how they managed to link everything back to The Conjuring movies, in particular the opening scenes of the original movie where the Warrens are giving their lecture, and the consequences that brings for the rest of the movies. Aside from that I just found the whole thing disappointing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien Covenant starts with the colony ship the Covenant heading towards a new planet, a crew of 15 and over 2000 colonist on board with just Walter (Fassbender) the android running the ship. When the ship encounters a freak storm in space leads the crew suffering loses they need to let the new captain Oram (Crudup) guide them through the damage to the systems.
When the repairs find a ghost transmission from a planet which appears perfectly habitable Oram goes against first mate Daniels’ (Waterston) opinion to continue their mission and takes a crew to this planet.
While on the planet the crew learn, this planet isn’t as safe as they had thought as they learn the deadly species waiting to be awoken along with a discovery which will give them answers about one of the mysterious of space.
Thoughts on Alien: Covenant
Characters/Performance – Walter is the latest model of the androids that joins the mission to do the jobs humans can’t manage he is good natured and understands his mission. Daniels is the second in command after the early tragedy, she doesn’t want to investigate the new planet but soon becomes the one we must rout for once she decides to fight. Oram is your standard captain trying to take the role with his own stamp, also he is meant to be religious. The rest of the crew are what you expect.
Performance wise, well this is where things get interesting, Fassbender is fine but let’s face it he is wasting his talent in movies like these. Waterston struggles to follow in the strong leading action heroine footsteps with Crudup being easily forgettable. This does have known names but nothing that comes off truly memorable in the performances.
Story – The story looks to follow up what happened after the Prometheus in what just feels like a complete rip off, of plenty of films, we have horribly written characters that just do panic instead of being professional in the role that would remain calm through each situation. This is a rinse, repeat film that ends up being one of the most predictable movies you have ever seen.
Horror/Sci-Fi – There is little to no horror in a movie that has ALIENS in which is the whole point. The sci-fi side of the story is all what you have come to expect from the genre without being anything fresh.
Settings – The film looks beautiful and stunning throughout but they also don’t have anything looking original though.
Special Effects – The special effects show us the settings looking almost flawless, it is the aliens which come off weak in places.
Final Thoughts – This is a poor addition to the franchise of aliens, we barely see them and the science versus religion question doesn’t end up getting discussed enough.
Overall: Poor franchise addition that is weak in every single aspect.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/05/16/alien-covenant-2017/
When the repairs find a ghost transmission from a planet which appears perfectly habitable Oram goes against first mate Daniels’ (Waterston) opinion to continue their mission and takes a crew to this planet.
While on the planet the crew learn, this planet isn’t as safe as they had thought as they learn the deadly species waiting to be awoken along with a discovery which will give them answers about one of the mysterious of space.
Thoughts on Alien: Covenant
Characters/Performance – Walter is the latest model of the androids that joins the mission to do the jobs humans can’t manage he is good natured and understands his mission. Daniels is the second in command after the early tragedy, she doesn’t want to investigate the new planet but soon becomes the one we must rout for once she decides to fight. Oram is your standard captain trying to take the role with his own stamp, also he is meant to be religious. The rest of the crew are what you expect.
Performance wise, well this is where things get interesting, Fassbender is fine but let’s face it he is wasting his talent in movies like these. Waterston struggles to follow in the strong leading action heroine footsteps with Crudup being easily forgettable. This does have known names but nothing that comes off truly memorable in the performances.
Story – The story looks to follow up what happened after the Prometheus in what just feels like a complete rip off, of plenty of films, we have horribly written characters that just do panic instead of being professional in the role that would remain calm through each situation. This is a rinse, repeat film that ends up being one of the most predictable movies you have ever seen.
Horror/Sci-Fi – There is little to no horror in a movie that has ALIENS in which is the whole point. The sci-fi side of the story is all what you have come to expect from the genre without being anything fresh.
Settings – The film looks beautiful and stunning throughout but they also don’t have anything looking original though.
Special Effects – The special effects show us the settings looking almost flawless, it is the aliens which come off weak in places.
Final Thoughts – This is a poor addition to the franchise of aliens, we barely see them and the science versus religion question doesn’t end up getting discussed enough.
Overall: Poor franchise addition that is weak in every single aspect.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/05/16/alien-covenant-2017/
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Carrie (1976) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
They're All Gonna Laugh At You!
If you are Carrie White, your life has not been an easy one. You have had to endure years of abuse and torture at the hand of your crazed, ultra religious and protective mother, the scorn and subject of ridicule of your entire school and the emergence of your unexplained abilities to move objects with your mind.
After a horribly embarrassing episode in the high school shower involving the onset of mensuration in the teen, Carrie is reduced to a sobby mess as her schoolmates laugh, point and ridicule her to no end. She finds no solace from her mother who now thinks of her as "dirty". The gym teacher comes to Carrie's defense and outlines to the rest of the class they will be in detention for one week as their penance and any further unruly behavior will result in their suspension and remove from attending their senior prom.
This does not sit well with Chris a popular girl with a cool boyfriend and an attitude toward authority. Another classmate, Sue, feels guilt upon her participation in the shower scene event so much so she forces her boyfriend to ask Carrie to the prom despite his reservation. Once at the prom, Carrie is delighted by the event, fighting through her embarrassment and demure feelings to try and enjoy her newfound appearance as a beautiful young woman.
All hell is about to break loose!
The original film Carrie, is a lot of premature exposition and character introductions for the inevitable culmination of Carrie's triumph, ridicule and retribution during the prom, but it is worth the wait.
Almost every character Carrie interacts with does not like her including most of her classmates, her teachers who can't remember her name and then there's her mother. Not only does she shame her daughter whenever possible and tell her she is a go good sinner, she even says at one point she wishes Carrie had not been born since she thinks of any sex act as a sin.
Both Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie who played Carrie's mother were nominated for Academy Awards in 1977 for their work and it was very well deserved. Carrie is so timid at times and then so filled with desire for vengeance and the willingness to murder her character arc was one you don't often see in film. Her mother annoyed everyone she met including the neighbors she tried to convert and her daughter who I don't think she loved at all. You instantly hated her for what she did to her fragile young daughter and Laurie brought her to life well.
Any movie which is over 40 years old will look somewhat dated with the music, costumes and hair styles (and lots of nudity, wow, forgot about that!), but that does not diminish the fine acting performances and the very fulfilling payoff the movie delivers.
A horror classic!
After a horribly embarrassing episode in the high school shower involving the onset of mensuration in the teen, Carrie is reduced to a sobby mess as her schoolmates laugh, point and ridicule her to no end. She finds no solace from her mother who now thinks of her as "dirty". The gym teacher comes to Carrie's defense and outlines to the rest of the class they will be in detention for one week as their penance and any further unruly behavior will result in their suspension and remove from attending their senior prom.
This does not sit well with Chris a popular girl with a cool boyfriend and an attitude toward authority. Another classmate, Sue, feels guilt upon her participation in the shower scene event so much so she forces her boyfriend to ask Carrie to the prom despite his reservation. Once at the prom, Carrie is delighted by the event, fighting through her embarrassment and demure feelings to try and enjoy her newfound appearance as a beautiful young woman.
All hell is about to break loose!
The original film Carrie, is a lot of premature exposition and character introductions for the inevitable culmination of Carrie's triumph, ridicule and retribution during the prom, but it is worth the wait.
Almost every character Carrie interacts with does not like her including most of her classmates, her teachers who can't remember her name and then there's her mother. Not only does she shame her daughter whenever possible and tell her she is a go good sinner, she even says at one point she wishes Carrie had not been born since she thinks of any sex act as a sin.
Both Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie who played Carrie's mother were nominated for Academy Awards in 1977 for their work and it was very well deserved. Carrie is so timid at times and then so filled with desire for vengeance and the willingness to murder her character arc was one you don't often see in film. Her mother annoyed everyone she met including the neighbors she tried to convert and her daughter who I don't think she loved at all. You instantly hated her for what she did to her fragile young daughter and Laurie brought her to life well.
Any movie which is over 40 years old will look somewhat dated with the music, costumes and hair styles (and lots of nudity, wow, forgot about that!), but that does not diminish the fine acting performances and the very fulfilling payoff the movie delivers.
A horror classic!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eli (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Eli is the young boy with the auto-immune disease, he does suffer nightmares about what would happen if he was outside, he lives in a bubble, which is his only safety in life. He is going through an experimental procedure which is meant to cure him, only for him to start suffering haunting visions and attacks by ghosts, he must figure out if they are trying to harm him or help him before he reaches the latest procedure. Rose and Paul are the religious parents that have given up nearly everything to make their son’s life better, trying to remain strong for him throughout the events of the film. Dr Isabella Horn is the doctor that is trying to help Eli, only her methods don’t seem to get explained to the family, while they are left to just believe anything she says. Haley is a girl from the neighbourhood that visits Eli, hoping to find friendship, though she does know the fate of most of the people in the house.
Performances – Charlie Shotwell does a wonderful job in the leading role, suffering through medical procedures, hauntings and emotional problems with ease through the film. Kelly Reilly, Max Martini and Lili Taylor are all strong through the film, which we don’t see much away from Charlie from any of them. Sadie Sink is solid without having much to do, other than being a friend to talk too.
Story – The story here follows a young boy with a medical condition who gets taken to an experimental hospital for treatment, when he starts getting visits from ghosts, where he might learn the truth about the hospital. This is a story which does keep you on your toes, you will constantly be thrown through different sub-genres of horror and it is excellent to see how the film can keep you guessing and leave you surprised by the ending, because if anybody saw this coming, they would be a liar. This is a story where not learning too much going in is even better because it does start with what could be a routine horror, but will leave you shocked by the end.
Horror – The horror here does seem to jump through so many sub-genres of horror it is a joy to watch, because the transition is seamless throughout.
Settings – The film keeps most of the film inside the hospital, this is an excellent location for the film to be set, which sees everything unfold down the dark filled hallways.
Special Effects – The effects do come off well too with how everything happens, be it the ghostly figures or the more practical ones too.
Scene of the Movie – The ghosts in the mirror.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The abusive people at the start of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does truly keep you on your toes, it is great to see this too, we will get scares and surprises and you won’t believe how everything unfolds.
Overall: Surprising Throughout.
Performances – Charlie Shotwell does a wonderful job in the leading role, suffering through medical procedures, hauntings and emotional problems with ease through the film. Kelly Reilly, Max Martini and Lili Taylor are all strong through the film, which we don’t see much away from Charlie from any of them. Sadie Sink is solid without having much to do, other than being a friend to talk too.
Story – The story here follows a young boy with a medical condition who gets taken to an experimental hospital for treatment, when he starts getting visits from ghosts, where he might learn the truth about the hospital. This is a story which does keep you on your toes, you will constantly be thrown through different sub-genres of horror and it is excellent to see how the film can keep you guessing and leave you surprised by the ending, because if anybody saw this coming, they would be a liar. This is a story where not learning too much going in is even better because it does start with what could be a routine horror, but will leave you shocked by the end.
Horror – The horror here does seem to jump through so many sub-genres of horror it is a joy to watch, because the transition is seamless throughout.
Settings – The film keeps most of the film inside the hospital, this is an excellent location for the film to be set, which sees everything unfold down the dark filled hallways.
Special Effects – The effects do come off well too with how everything happens, be it the ghostly figures or the more practical ones too.
Scene of the Movie – The ghosts in the mirror.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The abusive people at the start of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that does truly keep you on your toes, it is great to see this too, we will get scares and surprises and you won’t believe how everything unfolds.
Overall: Surprising Throughout.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Published in 1880, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is considered one of the most influential Christian books of the nineteenth century. The success of the novel led to film adaptations, most notably the 1955 academy award winning version of the film string Charlton Heston. Fast forward to 2016 and MGM and Paramount Pictures hope to see continue the success of this proven story with their newest film adaptation Ben-Hur.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Evil that came to Denham in Books
Jan 20, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Evil that came to Denham by John Ulrich is based on a real story that I doubt many people have heard of. This story is The Denham Massacre in 1870 where all seven members of the Marshall family were brutally murdered. If this is something that interests you I invite you to read on.
The narrator tells the story of his parents in their first house in Denham. Christine (the narrator's mother) comes from an extremely proper family. Her father is extremely controlling and abusive while her mother is religious and believes that her husband’s behavior is the will of God. Neither one of Christine’s parents approves of John, her boyfriend (and the narrator's father) because he is a garbage collector and doesn't come from money. It is their dislike for John and the mistreatment of Christine that pushes John to quickly find a home of their own.
John comes across a home for rent called Harridons at Cheapside Lane in Denham in the paper. After making the proper arrangements John, Christine, and their friend Dave happily rent the house. The happiness is short-lived as Christine is soon the first to hear the disembodied screams of women and children. It quickly becomes clear that there is more to this house than the three originally though. It takes a long talk with a priest and the landlords before they learn the truth behind the house. A horrible massacre many years before has stained the very land the house sits on and has left behind some very unhappy sprits.
I enjoyed the style of the storytelling used. When someone in the main story is telling another character a story about something else that happened in the past it is written like a flashback. The entire thing flows wonderfully without any jarring transitions. What I did not like was how just about everyone is accepting of what was going on in the house. Naturally, I expected more people to be skeptical of the paranormal happenings. This isn’t so much a problem as it is an odd observation.
This is an adult horror book that could be acceptable for slightly younger readers, such as those still in high school. One of the big issues is the fact that there is a fair amount of vivid gore scenes that some younger readers may find disturbing. Readers should also be prepared for a relatively long novel. I rate this book 3 out of 4. While not my favorite book its was still wonderful. A great read for any time of the year but especially around Halloween as this one truly was creepy. The fact that it is based on a true story adds to the creepy level even more.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
The narrator tells the story of his parents in their first house in Denham. Christine (the narrator's mother) comes from an extremely proper family. Her father is extremely controlling and abusive while her mother is religious and believes that her husband’s behavior is the will of God. Neither one of Christine’s parents approves of John, her boyfriend (and the narrator's father) because he is a garbage collector and doesn't come from money. It is their dislike for John and the mistreatment of Christine that pushes John to quickly find a home of their own.
John comes across a home for rent called Harridons at Cheapside Lane in Denham in the paper. After making the proper arrangements John, Christine, and their friend Dave happily rent the house. The happiness is short-lived as Christine is soon the first to hear the disembodied screams of women and children. It quickly becomes clear that there is more to this house than the three originally though. It takes a long talk with a priest and the landlords before they learn the truth behind the house. A horrible massacre many years before has stained the very land the house sits on and has left behind some very unhappy sprits.
I enjoyed the style of the storytelling used. When someone in the main story is telling another character a story about something else that happened in the past it is written like a flashback. The entire thing flows wonderfully without any jarring transitions. What I did not like was how just about everyone is accepting of what was going on in the house. Naturally, I expected more people to be skeptical of the paranormal happenings. This isn’t so much a problem as it is an odd observation.
This is an adult horror book that could be acceptable for slightly younger readers, such as those still in high school. One of the big issues is the fact that there is a fair amount of vivid gore scenes that some younger readers may find disturbing. Readers should also be prepared for a relatively long novel. I rate this book 3 out of 4. While not my favorite book its was still wonderful. A great read for any time of the year but especially around Halloween as this one truly was creepy. The fact that it is based on a true story adds to the creepy level even more.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
Food Additives 2
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
► Avoid those additives that are potentially dangerous or unsafe to your health & see which ones...
Travels with My Harp: The Complete Autobiography
Book
Mary O'Hara's life story is something only the most inspired press agent could ever hope to concoct'...