Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Inky Books (3 KP) rated The Queen of the Tearling in Books
Jun 21, 2018
Here’s the book I’ve been looking for! I’ve been waiting and searching and looking for a book that would hold my interest long enough to get through it. While I listened to the book instead of reading it because of the little time I have because of school and work (six classes plus 20 hours a week, why do I do this to myself?) plus trying to train my new puppy, I just haven’t had enough time to sleep, let alone read a book. So listening to books on my 1 hour + commute to and from school and work six days a week was the only option.
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Saving Max in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Though I was not familiar with this author when I recieved this book, upon reading it I could easily tell that Heugten was well-educated, especially since I actually came across a few words I did not know the meaning of - and I consider myself fairly well-read. Words like eidolon and glistered (both from the same sentence) made me a little intimidated by the book, but I stuck with it anyways. The prose of the text is written excellently and I thoroughly appreciated the book for this alone.
I was originally drawn to the book because it focuses on a mother's fight for the life and freedom of her son - which I can relate to in some ways. The sub-plots quickly intersect when the mother, Danielle, has to rely on her career as a lawyer to fight for her son while working with another lawyer, who happens to be the man she has a one-night stand with after turning to what she terms as "liquid courage." Some scenes in the plot were quite horrific, especially at the end of the book, but they were necessary to the plot. The psychiatric facility of Maitland where the plot centers at is intended to be the foremost facility of its kind in the country, but I found many of its practices either abysmal or downright terrifying. I found it very satisfying when Max began to take a more active role in his own court case, showing to me that he is indeed in charge of his own faculties (mostly) and not responsible for what he is being accused of. The big revelation that Danielle discovers is incredibly shocking and grotesque and reveals a psychosis I never knew even existed, much less the depths of depravity that it takes a person to. I have no doubt that such individuals exist in real life, though I believe that such people are beyond what psychologists or psychiatrists can fix. These kinds of people either need God or corporal punishment, but that is another soap box for another day.
I found the progression of the plot unpredictable, which is a good thing, but the ending not completely fulfilling, since the author obviously opted to leave one loose thread for a possible sequel. While I normally like book series, in this case I would have much preferred a more rewarding ending.
I was originally drawn to the book because it focuses on a mother's fight for the life and freedom of her son - which I can relate to in some ways. The sub-plots quickly intersect when the mother, Danielle, has to rely on her career as a lawyer to fight for her son while working with another lawyer, who happens to be the man she has a one-night stand with after turning to what she terms as "liquid courage." Some scenes in the plot were quite horrific, especially at the end of the book, but they were necessary to the plot. The psychiatric facility of Maitland where the plot centers at is intended to be the foremost facility of its kind in the country, but I found many of its practices either abysmal or downright terrifying. I found it very satisfying when Max began to take a more active role in his own court case, showing to me that he is indeed in charge of his own faculties (mostly) and not responsible for what he is being accused of. The big revelation that Danielle discovers is incredibly shocking and grotesque and reveals a psychosis I never knew even existed, much less the depths of depravity that it takes a person to. I have no doubt that such individuals exist in real life, though I believe that such people are beyond what psychologists or psychiatrists can fix. These kinds of people either need God or corporal punishment, but that is another soap box for another day.
I found the progression of the plot unpredictable, which is a good thing, but the ending not completely fulfilling, since the author obviously opted to leave one loose thread for a possible sequel. While I normally like book series, in this case I would have much preferred a more rewarding ending.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Barbarella (1968) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
Vaguely Memorable
An outer space agent travels to another galaxy in search of a missing inventor.
Acting: 2
Good cast, none of whom are swinging for the fences in Barbarella. Honestly, I can compare the acting chops in this movie to the likes of a softcore porn. Science fiction or not, there is absolutely nothing believable about this movie in the slightest. The acting made the rest of the movie hard to watch.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Despite the terrible acting, I didn’t hate the characters, namely the woman of the hour Barbarella (Jane Fonda). She’s quirky and I loved all of her inuendo references to sex. The movie is very sex-oriented and it succeeds, albeit minutely, in Barbarella’s experience and everyone else’s lack thereof. If they had given the movie more of a solid story, the characters would have had a fighting chance at being a part of a solid movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not terrible in the way of sci-fi. They tried a number of cool things that really are fairly impressive for a 1968 movie. From the weapons to the numerous space settings, I wasn’t disappointed by what was showing up on screen.
Conflict: 6
I think Barbarella cared more about being trippy than having a true conflict to drive the story. There are points where I cared about the outcome, but it seems more often than not that the movie is satisfied with being light-hearted and slowly paced. There was not enough going on for me to overly care.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
There are a handful of moments that stand out, but there isn’t a lot of replay value here. Even as I rewatch it as we speak, there are some spots that I forgot even happened. Definitely not a movie I need to see twice.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Never a good sign when I have to look the story up on Rotten Tomatoes. It was honestly that forgettable. I think the 800 screenwriters on this movie cared more about being funny than they did writing a good movie. Not impressed.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 61
I wanted to like Barbarella, but they gave me nothing to work with unfortunately. I wouldn’t even advise the Amazon Prime users (where the movie is available) to give it a shot. Steer clear.
Acting: 2
Good cast, none of whom are swinging for the fences in Barbarella. Honestly, I can compare the acting chops in this movie to the likes of a softcore porn. Science fiction or not, there is absolutely nothing believable about this movie in the slightest. The acting made the rest of the movie hard to watch.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Despite the terrible acting, I didn’t hate the characters, namely the woman of the hour Barbarella (Jane Fonda). She’s quirky and I loved all of her inuendo references to sex. The movie is very sex-oriented and it succeeds, albeit minutely, in Barbarella’s experience and everyone else’s lack thereof. If they had given the movie more of a solid story, the characters would have had a fighting chance at being a part of a solid movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not terrible in the way of sci-fi. They tried a number of cool things that really are fairly impressive for a 1968 movie. From the weapons to the numerous space settings, I wasn’t disappointed by what was showing up on screen.
Conflict: 6
I think Barbarella cared more about being trippy than having a true conflict to drive the story. There are points where I cared about the outcome, but it seems more often than not that the movie is satisfied with being light-hearted and slowly paced. There was not enough going on for me to overly care.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
There are a handful of moments that stand out, but there isn’t a lot of replay value here. Even as I rewatch it as we speak, there are some spots that I forgot even happened. Definitely not a movie I need to see twice.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Never a good sign when I have to look the story up on Rotten Tomatoes. It was honestly that forgettable. I think the 800 screenwriters on this movie cared more about being funny than they did writing a good movie. Not impressed.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 61
I wanted to like Barbarella, but they gave me nothing to work with unfortunately. I wouldn’t even advise the Amazon Prime users (where the movie is available) to give it a shot. Steer clear.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated She Who Became The Sun in Books
Aug 30, 2021
Beware those who journey further – a fairytale this ain’t!
After a fortune teller destines her brother for greatness and her own life to be worthless, a peasant girl may be expected to resign herself to her fate. However, upon her brother’s premature death, the girl seizes an opportunity to adopt both his name and his destiny.
She Who Became the Sun is a brutal, hard hitting debut to The Radiant Emperor series. Comparisons tend to quote Mulan due to the setting and the nature of Zhu disguising her female birth, but this is honestly where the comparison ends. For me, this novel is as if Mulan was in the Game of Thrones novels: warring factions, political backstabbing and the quest for power, Parker-Chan really doesn’t hold back.
As the debut novel, She Who Became the Sun has a lot of work to do in world-building and revealing the history behind the main characters. As a result, the pace of writing can feel a little slow at times but the final few chapters are well worth any previous perseverance.
Despite the pace in the middle of the novel, Parker-Chan’s writing is lyrical and intense simultaneously. Zhu’s desire to live gives a desperate, raw undertone to every one of the chapters under her POV. This is in direct juxtaposition from our other main character, Ouyang, who exudes cold detachment.
Zhu and Ouyang are both orphans, both queer and, as a girl and a eunuch, are both shunned by society. However, they consistently find themselves facing each other on opposite sides of a war: they may be ‘like and like’ but they are both characters who believe that their path is already decided for them, and neither will let anyone stand in their way!
Zhu and Ouyang are complex, well-developed characters, but they are nothing without their stunning supporting cast! I particularly loved Xu Da, Esen and Ma who never showed any prejudice against our main protagonists and purely accepted them for who they were.
She Who Became the Sun intertwines historical fiction with fantasy, war strategies with spirits and death with fate. This novel manages to be gritty and violent whilst also exploring gender identity in an open and refreshing manner. Morality is blurred and ghosts are rife: I can’t wait to see what happens next.
Thank you to Netgalley and Pan Macmillan for gifting me an e-ARC of She Who Became the Sun.
After a fortune teller destines her brother for greatness and her own life to be worthless, a peasant girl may be expected to resign herself to her fate. However, upon her brother’s premature death, the girl seizes an opportunity to adopt both his name and his destiny.
She Who Became the Sun is a brutal, hard hitting debut to The Radiant Emperor series. Comparisons tend to quote Mulan due to the setting and the nature of Zhu disguising her female birth, but this is honestly where the comparison ends. For me, this novel is as if Mulan was in the Game of Thrones novels: warring factions, political backstabbing and the quest for power, Parker-Chan really doesn’t hold back.
As the debut novel, She Who Became the Sun has a lot of work to do in world-building and revealing the history behind the main characters. As a result, the pace of writing can feel a little slow at times but the final few chapters are well worth any previous perseverance.
Despite the pace in the middle of the novel, Parker-Chan’s writing is lyrical and intense simultaneously. Zhu’s desire to live gives a desperate, raw undertone to every one of the chapters under her POV. This is in direct juxtaposition from our other main character, Ouyang, who exudes cold detachment.
Zhu and Ouyang are both orphans, both queer and, as a girl and a eunuch, are both shunned by society. However, they consistently find themselves facing each other on opposite sides of a war: they may be ‘like and like’ but they are both characters who believe that their path is already decided for them, and neither will let anyone stand in their way!
Zhu and Ouyang are complex, well-developed characters, but they are nothing without their stunning supporting cast! I particularly loved Xu Da, Esen and Ma who never showed any prejudice against our main protagonists and purely accepted them for who they were.
She Who Became the Sun intertwines historical fiction with fantasy, war strategies with spirits and death with fate. This novel manages to be gritty and violent whilst also exploring gender identity in an open and refreshing manner. Morality is blurred and ghosts are rife: I can’t wait to see what happens next.
Thank you to Netgalley and Pan Macmillan for gifting me an e-ARC of She Who Became the Sun.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Dec 23, 2018
Phenomenal
Sometimes a solid film can catch you off guard. Blockbusters, Marvel films, anything Disney, those are the ones you expect to succeed and most times they do. However, sometimes films come along that aren’t highly publicized that gives you a glimpse of its potential in a trailer you never even would have seen had you not gone to see a certain movie. Enter Green Book, the story of famous black pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and his decision to embark on a tour in the deep south accompanied by his driver and protector, an American-Italian man named Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen).
Acting: 10
You can tell someone is killing at their job as an actor in a movie when you don’t even recognize them. Viggo Mortensen is out of this world amazing in his performance as Tony. He’s tough as nails, but you can see his softer side coming forth as the movie progresses. He and Mahershala Ali have a phenomenal chemistry that carries the story and entertains you from start to finish. They make you feel as if they’re actually becoming the best of friends as their worlds collide. I loved the intensity of some of their scenes and how they could turn on a dime and bring you a little laughter. Also, not-so-small shout out to Linda Cardellini who plays Lip’s wife Dolores as her performance was extremely solid as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Tony Lip is easily one of my favorite characters in any 2018 movie this year. He is the typical gruff male and the stereotypical American-Italian type, but it’s eye-opening and fun to watch a character like that in a setting that’s not a mafia movie. His progression is what makes him great, or adds to his greatness rather. I couldn’t imagine coming across a guy like Tony Lip and not liking him after five minutes of meeting him.
I don’t want to downplay Don Shirley’s character, although Lip does steal the show. Shirley is one we can learn from, a guy that fights through adversity and is determined to win at all costs. He is a lost soul that drowns himself in the highs and lows of alcohol and music. You pity him and you cheer for him at the same time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I am always impressed with period pieces and how they are able to capture regions so well. There is such a great depiction here of the northeast vs. the deep south that transports you easily from one region to the next. One minute you’re on a bustling street in the middle of New York and the next you’re on country road surrounded by trees being taken to a backwoods gas station. Just thinking about it even now made me add another point on. I also loved the stark contrast between the beautiful venues where Shirley would play and the grimy hotels he had to stay in because of the color of his skin. It was a major eye-opener and a punch to the gut when you see it on screen.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
Great choice on the title as it alone helps the film to stand out. You will understand when you see it, trust me. Overall Green Book is a beautiful tale that ultimately breaks stereotypes and spin things in a different light we don’t quite expect. I loved how there were a number of scenes that were not only funny, but touching at the same time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Slightly cheesy, slightly unrealistic. I don’t care. To me, it was a fitting ending to an overall solid story. It’s got my seal of approval.
Overall: 97
I love when unexpected gems hit me in the face like Green Book. Go see this film. You will not be disappointed.
Acting: 10
You can tell someone is killing at their job as an actor in a movie when you don’t even recognize them. Viggo Mortensen is out of this world amazing in his performance as Tony. He’s tough as nails, but you can see his softer side coming forth as the movie progresses. He and Mahershala Ali have a phenomenal chemistry that carries the story and entertains you from start to finish. They make you feel as if they’re actually becoming the best of friends as their worlds collide. I loved the intensity of some of their scenes and how they could turn on a dime and bring you a little laughter. Also, not-so-small shout out to Linda Cardellini who plays Lip’s wife Dolores as her performance was extremely solid as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Tony Lip is easily one of my favorite characters in any 2018 movie this year. He is the typical gruff male and the stereotypical American-Italian type, but it’s eye-opening and fun to watch a character like that in a setting that’s not a mafia movie. His progression is what makes him great, or adds to his greatness rather. I couldn’t imagine coming across a guy like Tony Lip and not liking him after five minutes of meeting him.
I don’t want to downplay Don Shirley’s character, although Lip does steal the show. Shirley is one we can learn from, a guy that fights through adversity and is determined to win at all costs. He is a lost soul that drowns himself in the highs and lows of alcohol and music. You pity him and you cheer for him at the same time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I am always impressed with period pieces and how they are able to capture regions so well. There is such a great depiction here of the northeast vs. the deep south that transports you easily from one region to the next. One minute you’re on a bustling street in the middle of New York and the next you’re on country road surrounded by trees being taken to a backwoods gas station. Just thinking about it even now made me add another point on. I also loved the stark contrast between the beautiful venues where Shirley would play and the grimy hotels he had to stay in because of the color of his skin. It was a major eye-opener and a punch to the gut when you see it on screen.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
Great choice on the title as it alone helps the film to stand out. You will understand when you see it, trust me. Overall Green Book is a beautiful tale that ultimately breaks stereotypes and spin things in a different light we don’t quite expect. I loved how there were a number of scenes that were not only funny, but touching at the same time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Slightly cheesy, slightly unrealistic. I don’t care. To me, it was a fitting ending to an overall solid story. It’s got my seal of approval.
Overall: 97
I love when unexpected gems hit me in the face like Green Book. Go see this film. You will not be disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) created a post
Aug 22, 2019
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)