Search
Search results
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Tudor Rose in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This book was written over 50 years ago, so I suppose we must make some allowances for light that has been shed on past events between now and then, but still, there were a number of silly errors in this book which didn't help its credibility: the pre-contract was with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) and for some odd reason the book gives her given name as Joan, and Edmund Tudor died of the plague and not in battle.
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
Alexis Petridis recommended Yeah Yeah Yeah: The Story of Modern Pop in Books (curated)
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.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fortitude - Season 1 in TV
Dec 9, 2018
A genre-spanning atmospheric thriller
I watched Fortitude when it first aired a few years ago, and have decided to give it another watch now to refresh my memory now the final series has aired.
Fortitude is set in a beautiful location in the arctic, and the show really makes the most of showing off this location as often as possible. The plot itself is intriguing and bonkers, but yet doesn't quite go too far. It spans a verify of genres, from murder mystery and crime to drama and gory horror, and it does this really well. Some of the gory horror parts are actually quite disturbing (in an good). This is also a very character driven story, and most of the characters in this are well rounded and developed. It has a fantastic cast including some very well known faces like Stanley Tucci and Michael Gambon. However for me it's Richard Dormer that truly shines in this. He gives Dan a lot of depth and despite his errant and sometime psychotic ways, you do still feel sorry for him. I find it difficult to accept that this is the same person who plays Beric Dondarrion in GoT, he's that good an actor.
If you're looking for something that's well acted, doesn't stick to a specific genre and is honestly a little bizarre and unusual, then this is definitely worth a watch.
Fortitude is set in a beautiful location in the arctic, and the show really makes the most of showing off this location as often as possible. The plot itself is intriguing and bonkers, but yet doesn't quite go too far. It spans a verify of genres, from murder mystery and crime to drama and gory horror, and it does this really well. Some of the gory horror parts are actually quite disturbing (in an good). This is also a very character driven story, and most of the characters in this are well rounded and developed. It has a fantastic cast including some very well known faces like Stanley Tucci and Michael Gambon. However for me it's Richard Dormer that truly shines in this. He gives Dan a lot of depth and despite his errant and sometime psychotic ways, you do still feel sorry for him. I find it difficult to accept that this is the same person who plays Beric Dondarrion in GoT, he's that good an actor.
If you're looking for something that's well acted, doesn't stick to a specific genre and is honestly a little bizarre and unusual, then this is definitely worth a watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
You had me at Nicolas Cage.
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A dazzling, brutally honest biopic
Biopics are always challenging. Trying to condense the life of a public figure into a couple of hours is never easy, which is why it can go wrong. It must be even more intimidating when your subject is still alive, and in this case, Elton John is very much alive and kicking at the age of 72.
Rocketman was a project that was closely followed by a number of fans and media outlets, all of them keen to see how they brought his story to life on-screen. With Dexter Fletcher at the helm and a star-studded cast, the film certainly had potential. And boy did it deliver.
Something that took me by surprise was the fact the film was more of a musical, rather than a straight-up biopic. I must admit I’m not the biggest fan of musicals most of the time, but I was instantly charmed by the musical numbers in Rocketman. It felt appropriate to present someone so passionate about music in this way. The film is choreographed to perfection, with the key moments in Elton’s life brought to life through song and dance.
In the leading role, Taron Egerton absolutely shone as Elton. The fact he actually sang so many of his iconic songs, and did them well, is something that should be celebrated for years to come. But even beyond the music, the way he showcased Elton’s pain throughout his years brought me to tears several times, and I’d be as bold to say his performance was award worthy. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
It was also refreshing to see the brutal honesty in the film. Elton John himself said he ‘hadn’t lived a PG-13 life’, so the inclusion of sex, drugs and depression was absolutely necessary. Elton suffered from a lot of addictions, which are unapologetically presented on screen. There were so many tragedies I was not aware of, and it was so awful to see how he’d been treated by those close to him.
His parents in particular, Sheila (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Stanley (Steven Mackintosh), weren’t accepting of him and created a toxic home environment for Elton. I wasn’t aware of these strained relationships so it was interesting to observe, and the performances felt incredibly raw and devastating.
Naturally, the film also explored Elton’s first relationship with music manager John Reid (Richard Madden). This was heartbreaking to witness, as there was a lot of abuse and manipulation from Reid throughout their relationship. I thought Madden was exceptional in this role; villainous yet charismatic, and he delivered some truly cutting lines that, again, made me cry.
The one constant good relationship in Elton’s life was, and still is, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell). The two worked closely over the years to write the lyrics we know and love, and have endured lots together. As a key figure in his life, it was essential he was played well, and I couldn’t be happier with Bell’s performance. The energy between him and Egerton was a powerful thing.
These great performances are set against a beautiful backdrop of glitz and glamour, with some seriously impressive live shows where Egerton gets the opportunity to really shine. The gorgeous set design, costume design and cinematography only broke my heart further, when it became apparent a lot of it was a lie, and deep down Elton was battling with many demons. Fame does not always equal happiness, and this film is the epitome of that message.
Whilst it’s not an easy film to watch at times, it’s a beautiful celebration of Elton’s life that I can’t wait to experience again. He has came such a long way, and the film does everything in its power to show both the lows and highs, and remind fans where he came from. My advice would be to bring tissues, you’re going to need them.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/27/rocketman-dazzling-brutally-honest-biopic/
Rocketman was a project that was closely followed by a number of fans and media outlets, all of them keen to see how they brought his story to life on-screen. With Dexter Fletcher at the helm and a star-studded cast, the film certainly had potential. And boy did it deliver.
Something that took me by surprise was the fact the film was more of a musical, rather than a straight-up biopic. I must admit I’m not the biggest fan of musicals most of the time, but I was instantly charmed by the musical numbers in Rocketman. It felt appropriate to present someone so passionate about music in this way. The film is choreographed to perfection, with the key moments in Elton’s life brought to life through song and dance.
In the leading role, Taron Egerton absolutely shone as Elton. The fact he actually sang so many of his iconic songs, and did them well, is something that should be celebrated for years to come. But even beyond the music, the way he showcased Elton’s pain throughout his years brought me to tears several times, and I’d be as bold to say his performance was award worthy. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
It was also refreshing to see the brutal honesty in the film. Elton John himself said he ‘hadn’t lived a PG-13 life’, so the inclusion of sex, drugs and depression was absolutely necessary. Elton suffered from a lot of addictions, which are unapologetically presented on screen. There were so many tragedies I was not aware of, and it was so awful to see how he’d been treated by those close to him.
His parents in particular, Sheila (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Stanley (Steven Mackintosh), weren’t accepting of him and created a toxic home environment for Elton. I wasn’t aware of these strained relationships so it was interesting to observe, and the performances felt incredibly raw and devastating.
Naturally, the film also explored Elton’s first relationship with music manager John Reid (Richard Madden). This was heartbreaking to witness, as there was a lot of abuse and manipulation from Reid throughout their relationship. I thought Madden was exceptional in this role; villainous yet charismatic, and he delivered some truly cutting lines that, again, made me cry.
The one constant good relationship in Elton’s life was, and still is, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell). The two worked closely over the years to write the lyrics we know and love, and have endured lots together. As a key figure in his life, it was essential he was played well, and I couldn’t be happier with Bell’s performance. The energy between him and Egerton was a powerful thing.
These great performances are set against a beautiful backdrop of glitz and glamour, with some seriously impressive live shows where Egerton gets the opportunity to really shine. The gorgeous set design, costume design and cinematography only broke my heart further, when it became apparent a lot of it was a lie, and deep down Elton was battling with many demons. Fame does not always equal happiness, and this film is the epitome of that message.
Whilst it’s not an easy film to watch at times, it’s a beautiful celebration of Elton’s life that I can’t wait to experience again. He has came such a long way, and the film does everything in its power to show both the lows and highs, and remind fans where he came from. My advice would be to bring tissues, you’re going to need them.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/27/rocketman-dazzling-brutally-honest-biopic/