Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets: The Story of Iduna and Agnarr in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Dangerous Secrets is the greatly anticipated prequel to Frozen II which, for the first time in forever, shines the spotlight onto King Agnarr and Queen Iduna of Arendelle.
The 2019 film undoubtedly revealed some of these secrets, such as Iduna being Northuldra and saving Agnarr as a child as well as the two of them venturing to Ahtohallan to find the answers behind Elsa’s powers. Unfortunately, thanks to the film, we also know that they never completed their journey.
Cue Mari Mancusi who expertly bring the monarchs back to life through her writing and forms these little-known characters into best friends, young lovers and torn parents, always just trying to do the next right thing.
The back stories of Agnarr and Iduna are nothing short of brilliant: the reader meets both characters in the Enchanted Forest on the fateful day of the dam celebration and we experience the wonder of both worlds colliding, along with the following danger and confusion from a first-person perspective.
I thoroughly appreciated how Mari Mancusi didn’t have to explain what had happened between the Arendellian forces and the Northuldra: Mancusi knows that the reader already knows the true turn of events from the movie. All throughout Dangerous Secrets this “inside knowledge” is used beautifully: allowing us to experience events as our protagonists do, but without diluting the tension and excitement with explanations.
The reader grows up alongside the future King and Queen, seeing their friendship blossom and experiencing their respective heartbreaks and secrets. The Northuldra are widely believed to be enemies of Arendelle due to the King’s death and the rumours surrounding it. Iduna’s hardship of hiding her true identity is matched only by her grief of losing the only family she has ever known. Similarly, Agnarr has lost a father, his best friend General Matthias and now has to learn how to be a King. Even when they find solace in their friendship and the later romance that this grows into, Iduna is not royalty: their love is doomed from the start…isn’t it?
Regular readers of my reviews will know I loved Jen Calonita’s “Let it Go” but felt that towards the end the writing emulated the movie verbatim in places. I found Kamilla Benko’s “Forest of Shadows” interesting and unique but ultimately it tried too hard to insert different elements into the Frozen universe that we know and love.
In my opinion, Dangerous Secrets contains none of these criticisms.
Elements of the movie are included, of course they are! Agnarr and Iduna’s reading tree is taken straight out of Elsa’s/Ahtohallan’s ice memories; Oaken’s trading post and sauna is briefly mentioned as a rest stop during one of the couple’s adventures and the wonder of chocolate is something Elsa and Anna definitely inherited from their parents!
The difference with this novel is that any references to the movie are easter eggs: elements that we love to spot; they are not brash and in-your-face; they are subtle and add to the story rather than creating it entirely. For example, I loved the inclusion of Grand-Pabbie and the trolls. I also suspect we may have met Kristoff’s mother – perhaps opening the door to another book from Mari Mancusi?
Of course, Dangerous Secrets can only end with the fateful voyage made by the royal couple and, true to form, this made me cry my little heart out. I know from the author’s note that Mari Mancusi is a mother herself but I feel that I would have known this anyway through the sheer heartbreak she portrays through Iduna, and later Agnarr. From their first discovery of Elsa’s powers; to Anna’s accident; to acknowledging that they were endangering Elsa by asking her to “conceal, don’t feel” right up until the couple’s realisation that they will never see their daughters again: the writing is powerful, hard-hitting and, with Ahtohallan’s last gift, stunningly beautiful.
This is a five-star glimpse into the King and Queen of Arendelle and a must-read for any fan of Frozen.
Will Mancusi reveal the secret of the ice-gatherer woman’s identity next?
Only Ahtohallan knows.
The 2019 film undoubtedly revealed some of these secrets, such as Iduna being Northuldra and saving Agnarr as a child as well as the two of them venturing to Ahtohallan to find the answers behind Elsa’s powers. Unfortunately, thanks to the film, we also know that they never completed their journey.
Cue Mari Mancusi who expertly bring the monarchs back to life through her writing and forms these little-known characters into best friends, young lovers and torn parents, always just trying to do the next right thing.
The back stories of Agnarr and Iduna are nothing short of brilliant: the reader meets both characters in the Enchanted Forest on the fateful day of the dam celebration and we experience the wonder of both worlds colliding, along with the following danger and confusion from a first-person perspective.
I thoroughly appreciated how Mari Mancusi didn’t have to explain what had happened between the Arendellian forces and the Northuldra: Mancusi knows that the reader already knows the true turn of events from the movie. All throughout Dangerous Secrets this “inside knowledge” is used beautifully: allowing us to experience events as our protagonists do, but without diluting the tension and excitement with explanations.
The reader grows up alongside the future King and Queen, seeing their friendship blossom and experiencing their respective heartbreaks and secrets. The Northuldra are widely believed to be enemies of Arendelle due to the King’s death and the rumours surrounding it. Iduna’s hardship of hiding her true identity is matched only by her grief of losing the only family she has ever known. Similarly, Agnarr has lost a father, his best friend General Matthias and now has to learn how to be a King. Even when they find solace in their friendship and the later romance that this grows into, Iduna is not royalty: their love is doomed from the start…isn’t it?
Regular readers of my reviews will know I loved Jen Calonita’s “Let it Go” but felt that towards the end the writing emulated the movie verbatim in places. I found Kamilla Benko’s “Forest of Shadows” interesting and unique but ultimately it tried too hard to insert different elements into the Frozen universe that we know and love.
In my opinion, Dangerous Secrets contains none of these criticisms.
Elements of the movie are included, of course they are! Agnarr and Iduna’s reading tree is taken straight out of Elsa’s/Ahtohallan’s ice memories; Oaken’s trading post and sauna is briefly mentioned as a rest stop during one of the couple’s adventures and the wonder of chocolate is something Elsa and Anna definitely inherited from their parents!
The difference with this novel is that any references to the movie are easter eggs: elements that we love to spot; they are not brash and in-your-face; they are subtle and add to the story rather than creating it entirely. For example, I loved the inclusion of Grand-Pabbie and the trolls. I also suspect we may have met Kristoff’s mother – perhaps opening the door to another book from Mari Mancusi?
Of course, Dangerous Secrets can only end with the fateful voyage made by the royal couple and, true to form, this made me cry my little heart out. I know from the author’s note that Mari Mancusi is a mother herself but I feel that I would have known this anyway through the sheer heartbreak she portrays through Iduna, and later Agnarr. From their first discovery of Elsa’s powers; to Anna’s accident; to acknowledging that they were endangering Elsa by asking her to “conceal, don’t feel” right up until the couple’s realisation that they will never see their daughters again: the writing is powerful, hard-hitting and, with Ahtohallan’s last gift, stunningly beautiful.
This is a five-star glimpse into the King and Queen of Arendelle and a must-read for any fan of Frozen.
Will Mancusi reveal the secret of the ice-gatherer woman’s identity next?
Only Ahtohallan knows.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated By the Feet of Men in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-80.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
By the Feet of Men by Grant Price is a very good post-apocalyptic novel, full of adventures and danger. I am glad I got the chance to read and review this book. Thank you to the author, Grant Price, for sending me a copy of his book in exchange for my honest review.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
The book is set in a post-apocalyptic world, where the world’s population has been decimated by the Change, a chain reaction of events triggered by global warming. Governments have fallen and cities have crumbled. The productions have stopped. The Alps region, which contains the continent’s fresh water, has become a closed state with heavily fortified borders.
The ones that managed to survive cling on by trading through the Runners, truck drivers who deliver cargo and take a percentage. Two Runners, Cassady and Ghazi are called to deliver medical supplies to a research base deep in the Italian desert, where scientists claim to be building a machine that could reverse the effects of the Change.
On this journey they will be joined by a collection of other Runners, all of whom have something to prove and have a story of their own. Standing in their way are starving nomads, crumbling cities, hostile weather and a rogue state set to destroy the convoy. And there’s another problem: Cassady is close to losing his nerve.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
The world building in By the Feet of Men is very interesting and very well described, especially the part about the Change and the Koalition. From the beginning, we get a very good idea of what kind of world we are living in now, from global warming, to the starving nomads, to how the Runners make a living. I think that was a very good introduction to the new normal that we are about to engage in.
I think perhaps due to the elaborate description, I found the beginning quite slow. The true adventure and road trip doesn’t start until halfway through the book. Once the adventure begins, though, many things happen in short spaces of time. The pacing is quite fast until the very end. The book contains brutal and graphic details, so it may contain a lot of trigger warnings and I wouldn’t recommend it for the faint hearted people.
I loved Cassady and Ghazi and really enjoyed their backstories.
The way how they made decisions based on their past experiences, which were sometimes very different. I love the constant battle they seem to have between what is right and wrong, when a decision has to be made quite fast to ensure their survival. Sometimes, their survival might mean leaving someone behind, and not both of them would agree that this is the right decision to be made. However, I think there is something much more difficult than making such a decision, and that’s living with the consequences.
Apart from the main characters, I had a very hard time remembering the other characters and their backstories. This made me annoyed a few times. I am very good at remembering side characters, and I usually prefer them to the main characters. However. this wasn’t the case for this book. And this is something that really bothers me.
I was quite intrigued about the ending.
I enjoyed it and I liked how it ended. My initial thoughts were that it was very realistic. It also had an ending that I haven’t seen too much explored in any post-apocalyptic fiction I’ve read or seen. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of explanation to some points. However, I think the main characters’ stories and experiences in the end of the book contributed to a balanced and emotional ending.
I definitely recommend By the Feet of Men to all fans of post-apocalyptic fiction. Something new and fresh, unexplored anywhere else and full of adventure and realistic brutality. I am sure you will enjoy it.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-80.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
By the Feet of Men by Grant Price is a very good post-apocalyptic novel, full of adventures and danger. I am glad I got the chance to read and review this book. Thank you to the author, Grant Price, for sending me a copy of his book in exchange for my honest review.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
The book is set in a post-apocalyptic world, where the world’s population has been decimated by the Change, a chain reaction of events triggered by global warming. Governments have fallen and cities have crumbled. The productions have stopped. The Alps region, which contains the continent’s fresh water, has become a closed state with heavily fortified borders.
The ones that managed to survive cling on by trading through the Runners, truck drivers who deliver cargo and take a percentage. Two Runners, Cassady and Ghazi are called to deliver medical supplies to a research base deep in the Italian desert, where scientists claim to be building a machine that could reverse the effects of the Change.
On this journey they will be joined by a collection of other Runners, all of whom have something to prove and have a story of their own. Standing in their way are starving nomads, crumbling cities, hostile weather and a rogue state set to destroy the convoy. And there’s another problem: Cassady is close to losing his nerve.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
The world building in By the Feet of Men is very interesting and very well described, especially the part about the Change and the Koalition. From the beginning, we get a very good idea of what kind of world we are living in now, from global warming, to the starving nomads, to how the Runners make a living. I think that was a very good introduction to the new normal that we are about to engage in.
I think perhaps due to the elaborate description, I found the beginning quite slow. The true adventure and road trip doesn’t start until halfway through the book. Once the adventure begins, though, many things happen in short spaces of time. The pacing is quite fast until the very end. The book contains brutal and graphic details, so it may contain a lot of trigger warnings and I wouldn’t recommend it for the faint hearted people.
I loved Cassady and Ghazi and really enjoyed their backstories.
The way how they made decisions based on their past experiences, which were sometimes very different. I love the constant battle they seem to have between what is right and wrong, when a decision has to be made quite fast to ensure their survival. Sometimes, their survival might mean leaving someone behind, and not both of them would agree that this is the right decision to be made. However, I think there is something much more difficult than making such a decision, and that’s living with the consequences.
Apart from the main characters, I had a very hard time remembering the other characters and their backstories. This made me annoyed a few times. I am very good at remembering side characters, and I usually prefer them to the main characters. However. this wasn’t the case for this book. And this is something that really bothers me.
I was quite intrigued about the ending.
I enjoyed it and I liked how it ended. My initial thoughts were that it was very realistic. It also had an ending that I haven’t seen too much explored in any post-apocalyptic fiction I’ve read or seen. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of explanation to some points. However, I think the main characters’ stories and experiences in the end of the book contributed to a balanced and emotional ending.
I definitely recommend By the Feet of Men to all fans of post-apocalyptic fiction. Something new and fresh, unexplored anywhere else and full of adventure and realistic brutality. I am sure you will enjoy it.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Nothing Tastes as Good in Books
Jun 24, 2019
I happened to see this book by chance, in my local library. I was drawn to it because it's cover, it's title - I'm anorexic, and I happen to be drawn to things relating to mental health. It doesn't expressly say on it that it's about anorexia, but the cover made it pretty obvious to me. A warning to anyone that wants to read it: it's hard. If you suffer from something like this, like me, then you will probably have difficulty reading something so close to home. Especially if you're recovering. But it gets better. (I mean the book; I'm not using that "life gets better" crap.)
So Annabel is dead. I'm studying The Lovely Bones at school so the whole beyond-death narration isn't that special to me now. But Hennessy does it pretty differently to Sebold.
We don't know much about Annabel, not at first. But we begin to learn about her while she helps her assigned "soul-in-need" - The Boss (definitely not God) has promised her a final communication with her family if she helps Julia. And this looks easy, at first - Julia is from Annabel's old school, with a loving family and good grades. Everything is fine, except she's fat. Annabel thinks this should be easy - after all, she's an expert in weight loss. She lost weight until she died.
But Annabel soon finds out that Julia's issues are a whole lot more complex than her weight. At first, losing weight helps. But then her old scars come back to haunt her, and Annabel realises that maybe losing weight isn't going to fix all her problems.
Aside from the obvious issue, this book does talk about a lot of important topics. It covers friendships and relationships, like most YA novels do, but it also combats ideas on feminism, affairs with older men, and people all having their own hidden demons.
At first, I wasn't keen on Annabel. I wanted to like her - I felt I should, because I could relate to her story so much. But she was a bitch. She wanted other people to be like her, and rather than encouraging recovery and health and happiness, she shared tipped on weight loss. It really did hurt to read. Her ideas on "perfection" and being weak for eating just really hit a nerve for me. Not because it was wrong (though I'd never encourage an eating disorder in someone else), but because it's exactly how I'd think about myself. Her behaviours, her worries, her anger - they were so real.
But Annabel, despite being dead, grows alongside Julia. Yes, she tells Julia to starve herself and run on an empty stomach and hate herself, but eventually she starts to feel for her. She wants Julia to combat her issues, to actually be happy. And she realises, despite having been so upset with her old friends for recovering, that maybe she wasted her life. Maybe she could have been something more, rather than striving to be less.
I found this really emotional. Annabel's love for her sister, the sister she neglected for years while she was focused on her goals, and the future she cut short. The way Julia's life changed when her passion for writing and journalism was overtaken by her obsession with food, calories, exercise. It's so real and so sad. And the ending isn't "happily ever after" - Annabel's still dead, Julia's in counselling - but it's real. It gives hope that things can change, that Julia can really achieve happiness.
At first, I didn't like this that much. I know Annabel is just a character, but I just didn't like her. She was one of those girls that makes anorexia sound like a choice, a lifestyle, and I hated that. But later she realises she is sick, and I actually felt sorry for her. I was sorry that she had been brainwashed by her illness into believing she was doing what was right.
The only reason I'm giving just 4.5 stars to this book is because Annabel was a bitch. Yes, she is a character, and yes, she grows considerably throughout the novel, but her encouragement of EDs just drove me insane. Personal pet peeve, I guess.
So Annabel is dead. I'm studying The Lovely Bones at school so the whole beyond-death narration isn't that special to me now. But Hennessy does it pretty differently to Sebold.
We don't know much about Annabel, not at first. But we begin to learn about her while she helps her assigned "soul-in-need" - The Boss (definitely not God) has promised her a final communication with her family if she helps Julia. And this looks easy, at first - Julia is from Annabel's old school, with a loving family and good grades. Everything is fine, except she's fat. Annabel thinks this should be easy - after all, she's an expert in weight loss. She lost weight until she died.
But Annabel soon finds out that Julia's issues are a whole lot more complex than her weight. At first, losing weight helps. But then her old scars come back to haunt her, and Annabel realises that maybe losing weight isn't going to fix all her problems.
Aside from the obvious issue, this book does talk about a lot of important topics. It covers friendships and relationships, like most YA novels do, but it also combats ideas on feminism, affairs with older men, and people all having their own hidden demons.
At first, I wasn't keen on Annabel. I wanted to like her - I felt I should, because I could relate to her story so much. But she was a bitch. She wanted other people to be like her, and rather than encouraging recovery and health and happiness, she shared tipped on weight loss. It really did hurt to read. Her ideas on "perfection" and being weak for eating just really hit a nerve for me. Not because it was wrong (though I'd never encourage an eating disorder in someone else), but because it's exactly how I'd think about myself. Her behaviours, her worries, her anger - they were so real.
But Annabel, despite being dead, grows alongside Julia. Yes, she tells Julia to starve herself and run on an empty stomach and hate herself, but eventually she starts to feel for her. She wants Julia to combat her issues, to actually be happy. And she realises, despite having been so upset with her old friends for recovering, that maybe she wasted her life. Maybe she could have been something more, rather than striving to be less.
I found this really emotional. Annabel's love for her sister, the sister she neglected for years while she was focused on her goals, and the future she cut short. The way Julia's life changed when her passion for writing and journalism was overtaken by her obsession with food, calories, exercise. It's so real and so sad. And the ending isn't "happily ever after" - Annabel's still dead, Julia's in counselling - but it's real. It gives hope that things can change, that Julia can really achieve happiness.
At first, I didn't like this that much. I know Annabel is just a character, but I just didn't like her. She was one of those girls that makes anorexia sound like a choice, a lifestyle, and I hated that. But later she realises she is sick, and I actually felt sorry for her. I was sorry that she had been brainwashed by her illness into believing she was doing what was right.
The only reason I'm giving just 4.5 stars to this book is because Annabel was a bitch. Yes, she is a character, and yes, she grows considerably throughout the novel, but her encouragement of EDs just drove me insane. Personal pet peeve, I guess.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
Notebooks for iPhone
Productivity and Business
App
This is the "iPhone only" version of Notebooks. If you want to run it on your iPad, too, you might...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Chat Love in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I wanted to read this book immediately after reading the synopsis, and I was honoured when the author, Justine Faeth, approached me and sent me an ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)