Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mulan (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
"Dishonour on you! Dishonour on your cow!" This is probably the only thing from Mulan that I can identify beyond some of the characters. I think that's generally how Disney goes though, they become viral so easily that you recognise things without ever having seen the films... even worse in this case though... I actually own it but took myself to the cinema to see it anyway. If you're gonna do it you've gotta do it right because it doesn't matter how close I sit to the 50 inch TV at home it's not like watching it on the big screen.
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
World War II was an event that changed America’s standing globally and ensured the end of Hitler’s tyranny over Europe. It witnessed an isolated nation enter the war after being attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The war forced men from all walks of life to step up in defense of their nation and for the freedom of those abroad. Desmond Dawes was one of these men, however, he sought to serve a different function in war. Instead of taking lives, he wanted to save them.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jack Reacher (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Leaping straight from the pages of author Lee Child’s long-running popular novels and short stories, the tough-as-nails Jack Reacher has arrived on the big screen as the latest starring role franchise for Tom Cruise. Although described by Child as 6’5”, 250 pounds, with blond hair, Cruise does an admirable job of bringing the no-nonsense former military investigator to life.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
James Bagshaw recommended track Femme d'argent, La (with Air France) by Air in Moon Safari by Air in Music (curated)
8.7
Album
Favorite
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Golden Couple in Books
Aug 25, 2021
I've read every book that Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen have wrote together, so when I got the chance to read their latest book entitled The Golden Couple, I jumped at the chance! I've loved every novel they've written together, and I definitely loved The Golden Couple.
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
The synopsis for The Golden Couple reeled me in. The plot was solid albeit a little farfetched towards the ending when everything is revealed. Still, the writing was done fantastically, and I was instantly transported to this world Hendricks and Pekkanen had created. With all that was going on, I felt like there was one main storyline and two minor storylines going on. It was fun reading The Golden Couple and trying to figure out who all was guilty. In fact, there were times I thought it may even be Marissa creating problems for herself to make herself look more like the victim. While this book is more predictable and doesn't have as many plot twists as Hendricks' and Pekkanen's previous novels, the plot twists in this novel were interesting to say the least. I kind of suspected the culprit of the story, but then again, everyone was a suspect in my head. The ending is tied up nicely with no loose ends which is always a plus for me.
Hendricks and Pekkanen know how to write some stellar characters! I felt as if every character in The Golden Couple was fleshed out enough to feel realistic instead of just some writing on paper. Marissa showed that she was only human through her mistakes. (Personally, I don't think I would be as forgiving as her husband, Matthew, appeared to be if my spouse cheated on me.) I felt that I would probably be like Marissa if I were in her shoes. She was fairly easy to relate to. I loved how much love she had for her young son, and I liked how willing she was to work on her marriage. I felt sorry for Marissa's husband, Matthew, when Marissa revealed she had cheated on him. I did like how forgiving he was and how much it seemed that he wanted to work on the marriage even though he wasn't the one who cheated. Sometimes I did think he tried to hard though to make Marissa feel loved. Polly, Marissa's assistant, was definitely an interesting character for sure. I didn't know what to make of her or if she could be trusted. She seemed to eager to please Marissa and like she was trying to hard to be Marissa. Still, she was a well written and likeable character. I enjoyed Avery and her very logical mind as well as her very different approach to non-traditional therapy. Her tactics she used were definitely different (and probably illegal), but they always seemed to work. I also admired how dedicated she was to her clients and how much she wanted to help them. Avery came across as very smart and sophisticated.
Trigger warnings for The Golden Couple include infidelity, profanity, alcohol use, some violence, gun violence, death, and murder.
Overall, The Golden Couple is a highly entertaining read that you will not want to put down. It will leave you guessing until the very end. I would definitely recommend The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 18+ who are after a fantastic thriller that will stay with them for awhile.
--
(A special thank you to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for providing me with an ARC eBook of The Golden Couple by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated F1 2017 Day One Edition in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
More depth then last year (6 more)
AI is better
Tougher then last year
No German Grand Prix
It makes you think more
Feels like a proper F1 game
More to do besides campaign
Ai still isn’t perfect (3 more)
Biased stewarding
McLaren is constantly cursed
Never be Hamilton’s team mate
Still got it to be at the top
I went off F1 games when I played F1 2011 for the Wii, so after I took a chance on F1 2016, which I love for the gameplay the graphics the engine, the pit stops, the drivers AI (well some of the AI.) i just loved how Codemasters made an F1 game that was worth paying for, so I suppose this one is the same right? Wrong, this is way way better the 2016, The high scores it has got, are validated. I’ve never seen graphics this smooth or advanced, even my other half who has no interest in games whatsoever went “wow” when she saw them. The R&D part of F1 2017 is bigger by all means. Last year you had 5 departments with 5 upgrades, this year, you have 4 but you have at least 20 upgrades per department with separate goals for achievements, like do 20 pits stops your pit crew gets quicker or you race 60 races as first driver you get 15% points back from what you earn all race weekends. The most challenging part of this R&D is what do you upgrade first? (If you race a McLaren, I’d recommend reliability then speed.) not only that but do you save up your points and buy quality control and/or make everything cheaper (it’s a long road but it is worth it.) The biggest change this year is reliability, last year you could put fill your car up, put it in rich and that’s it. Not so this year, you have to manage your parts, and every engine has to last you at least 6 races, same with the parts, otherwise more then 4 engines or parts, grid penalties I’m afraid. There are More ways to get R&D points this year, track acclimatisation, Tyre management team objectives and Qualifying pace now they've added fuel saving and Race Strategy. They don’t take as long as they used to too. The teams you can pick have been put into 3 categories. (Your McLarens and Saubers make the bottom, Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes make the top and everyone else makes the middle.) each team has different objectives, (so Mercedes is to stay top of the pile, Williams is challenging for podiums, Saubers is to challenge for points you get the idea.)
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Seo-Hyun Ahn (1 more)
Seamless, beautiful effects
Should have stuck at being a family movie (1 more)
Jake Gyllenhaal
Plays as though it should be a family movie, but it definitely isn't
Okja created a fair bit of buzz at Cannes recently, when it was revealed that it had been picked up by Netflix, resulting in boos from some of the snobby traditionalists that were present for its screening. Okja was written and directed by Bong Joon Ho, a Korean filmmaker who also wrote and directed one of my favourite movies of recent years, Snowpiercer. That movie failed to receive a UK release, despite starring Chris Evans in-between his Captain America/Avengers duties, so I’m more than happy if a movie that’s just a little bit different from the norm manages to find an audience through modern, ‘non-traditional’ routes.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Poorly written (2 more)
Not intersectional
Lack of sources in the physical version
Mediocre essays, I wish I could've liked this more
Disappointment and shallow is probably the most apt descriptions I can think of when describing this book which is really sad because I usually enjoy feminist essays.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.