Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Stargirl (Stargirl, #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Stargirl</i> is a popular young adult novel by Jerry Spinelli, originally published in 2000. But what is it that has kept it a favourite sixteen years later? The story is told by Leo Borlock, a student in the 11th grade at Mica Area High School. This year there is a new girl who calls herself Stargirl and, like her name, is completely different from everyone else. She has an outlandish dress sense, plays the ukele at lunchtimes, knows and celebrates everyone’s birthdays. The only word the school can think of to describe her is “HUH?”
Despite the weirdness surrounding her, Stargirl quickly becomes popular. People are entertained by her, want to be with her, want to be her. Leo is equally fascinated by her and is shocked when she begins to pay him attention. However, after a while the novelty of Stargirl wears off. Students begin to despise her and shun her. Stargirl does not care, but Leo does. He tries to change Stargirl, tries to make her act normal like everyone else.
<i>Stargirl</i>, like the titular character, is a breath of fresh air. It is quick and easy to read with the benefit of added humour. It also contains a powerful message. Although Stargirl is not affected by the behaviour of her fellow students, it is shocking the extent that the entire student body goes to in shunning her. This is a form of bullying, something that a child in the real world faces everyday. And that child will be bothered by it, will be hurt, and will be upset. It will probably affect their future.
Leo’s behaviour is something that everyone will be able to recognize in themself. Conforming to the norm. Leo wanted Stargirl to change, to go by her real name, Susan. To stop wearing eccentric clothing. To stop drawing attention to herself. Ultimately, what Leo was asking was for Stargirl to stop being herself. And that is really sad. I have lost count of the times people have said to me “Just be yourself,” but do they mean that? Perhaps they are really saying, “behave like everyone else, and you’ll fit in”?
Spinelli’s most important message in <i>Stargirl</i> is that we should not be afraid to be ourselves. It is unlikely that anyone is as bizarre as Stargirl, yet if everyone stopped being so scared to reveal their true feelings, likes and dislikes etc, perhaps schools would become less intimidating places?
<i>Stargirl</i> is suitable for teenage and adult readers who want something quick to devour. It will entertain, and, although it has a rather ambiguous ending, nothing disastrous happens in the book. It will hopefully leave you feeling as care free as its main character.
Stargirl</i> is a popular young adult novel by Jerry Spinelli, originally published in 2000. But what is it that has kept it a favourite sixteen years later? The story is told by Leo Borlock, a student in the 11th grade at Mica Area High School. This year there is a new girl who calls herself Stargirl and, like her name, is completely different from everyone else. She has an outlandish dress sense, plays the ukele at lunchtimes, knows and celebrates everyone’s birthdays. The only word the school can think of to describe her is “HUH?”
Despite the weirdness surrounding her, Stargirl quickly becomes popular. People are entertained by her, want to be with her, want to be her. Leo is equally fascinated by her and is shocked when she begins to pay him attention. However, after a while the novelty of Stargirl wears off. Students begin to despise her and shun her. Stargirl does not care, but Leo does. He tries to change Stargirl, tries to make her act normal like everyone else.
<i>Stargirl</i>, like the titular character, is a breath of fresh air. It is quick and easy to read with the benefit of added humour. It also contains a powerful message. Although Stargirl is not affected by the behaviour of her fellow students, it is shocking the extent that the entire student body goes to in shunning her. This is a form of bullying, something that a child in the real world faces everyday. And that child will be bothered by it, will be hurt, and will be upset. It will probably affect their future.
Leo’s behaviour is something that everyone will be able to recognize in themself. Conforming to the norm. Leo wanted Stargirl to change, to go by her real name, Susan. To stop wearing eccentric clothing. To stop drawing attention to herself. Ultimately, what Leo was asking was for Stargirl to stop being herself. And that is really sad. I have lost count of the times people have said to me “Just be yourself,” but do they mean that? Perhaps they are really saying, “behave like everyone else, and you’ll fit in”?
Spinelli’s most important message in <i>Stargirl</i> is that we should not be afraid to be ourselves. It is unlikely that anyone is as bizarre as Stargirl, yet if everyone stopped being so scared to reveal their true feelings, likes and dislikes etc, perhaps schools would become less intimidating places?
<i>Stargirl</i> is suitable for teenage and adult readers who want something quick to devour. It will entertain, and, although it has a rather ambiguous ending, nothing disastrous happens in the book. It will hopefully leave you feeling as care free as its main character.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Aug 20, 2018
The first real Oscar contender of 2018
The first shot of the 2018 Oscar race has been fired and it is Spike Lee's BLACKkKLANSMAN. If you are an "Oscar completest" I highly recommend you check this film out as you will be hearing it's name called (probably many times) when the Oscar nominations are revealed.
But...is it a good film?
For the most part, yes.
Based on the incredible true story of Colorado Springs undercover office, Ron Stallworth, an African-American, who was able to infiltrate the KKK via the phone. He then needs a surrogate to keep the subterfuge up in face to face meetings.
In playing Stallworth, relative newcomer John David Washington (son of Denzel) shows that he has inherited at least some of his famous father's acting chops. His portrayal of Washington shows a conflicted man, determined to do his job while juggling his feelings and responsibilities of being a black man in early 1970's America.
Laura Harrier (Liz in SPIDERMAN: HOMECOMING) matches Washington beat for beat as Black activist - and potential love interest - Patrice Dumas who has razor-sharp focus on changing the plight of African Americans and drives Stallworth to thinking about more than just his job.
Other strong performances comes from Topher Grace (as KKK Head David Duke), Robert John Burke as Chief Bridges and Corey Hawkins in an extended cameo as Kwame Ture (aka 1960's Black Activist Stokely Carmichael). I really liked the passion and furvor Hawkins brought to this part.
But...the standout performance in this film comes from Adam Driver as the "white face" of Ron Stallworth to the KKK. He portrays Flip Zimmerman who has been constantly denying his Jewish heritage to pass as a WASP in this world and when he comes face to face with race hatred, he must confront his own inner feelings towards his own past. This is another strong performance by Driver (who is much, much more than just Kylo Ren) and I expect to hear his name called when Oscar nominations are announced.
But...good acting aside...this is a Spike Lee "joint" in all the ways (good and bad) that Spike Lee directs his films. There is a cleanliness in the way he drives the narrative never losing focus on what the main theme of the proceedings needs to be. He paints interesting pictures on the screen and crafts a strong, message picture that should be seen by all.
But...he does have a tendency to overplay his hand, hitting the audience over the head over and over again with his themes to the point of me wanting to say to the screen "all right already, I get it!". This knocks the film down just a hair.
But...that is the price of admission for a very good Spike Lee film, one that I highly recommend you see.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But...is it a good film?
For the most part, yes.
Based on the incredible true story of Colorado Springs undercover office, Ron Stallworth, an African-American, who was able to infiltrate the KKK via the phone. He then needs a surrogate to keep the subterfuge up in face to face meetings.
In playing Stallworth, relative newcomer John David Washington (son of Denzel) shows that he has inherited at least some of his famous father's acting chops. His portrayal of Washington shows a conflicted man, determined to do his job while juggling his feelings and responsibilities of being a black man in early 1970's America.
Laura Harrier (Liz in SPIDERMAN: HOMECOMING) matches Washington beat for beat as Black activist - and potential love interest - Patrice Dumas who has razor-sharp focus on changing the plight of African Americans and drives Stallworth to thinking about more than just his job.
Other strong performances comes from Topher Grace (as KKK Head David Duke), Robert John Burke as Chief Bridges and Corey Hawkins in an extended cameo as Kwame Ture (aka 1960's Black Activist Stokely Carmichael). I really liked the passion and furvor Hawkins brought to this part.
But...the standout performance in this film comes from Adam Driver as the "white face" of Ron Stallworth to the KKK. He portrays Flip Zimmerman who has been constantly denying his Jewish heritage to pass as a WASP in this world and when he comes face to face with race hatred, he must confront his own inner feelings towards his own past. This is another strong performance by Driver (who is much, much more than just Kylo Ren) and I expect to hear his name called when Oscar nominations are announced.
But...good acting aside...this is a Spike Lee "joint" in all the ways (good and bad) that Spike Lee directs his films. There is a cleanliness in the way he drives the narrative never losing focus on what the main theme of the proceedings needs to be. He paints interesting pictures on the screen and crafts a strong, message picture that should be seen by all.
But...he does have a tendency to overplay his hand, hitting the audience over the head over and over again with his themes to the point of me wanting to say to the screen "all right already, I get it!". This knocks the film down just a hair.
But...that is the price of admission for a very good Spike Lee film, one that I highly recommend you see.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Runaway Girl: A beautiful girl. Trafficked for sex. Is there nowhere to hide? in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Casey Watson is a specialist foster carer who temporarily houses vulnerable children in emergency situations. Since working in this field for decades, she has been documenting her experiences in a series of books, each one focusing on a different child. Her thirteenth, and most recent book is <i>Runaway Girl</i>, aptly named about a (supposedly) fourteen-year-old girl, running away from several distressing situations.
Adrianna arrives on Casey’s doorstep with no possessions, no English and no passport. Apart from knowing she is Polish, Adrianna is a complete mystery to the Watson family and the services involved. With her sixth sense tingling, Casey is certain there is something important that Adrianna is hiding and, despite all her attempts, it is not until an emergency hospitalization that the frightened Polish girl starts telling the truth.
With a background of abuse, homelessness and sex trafficking, Adrianna’s story will open readers’ eyes to the shocking situations many foreign children find themselves. Unfortunately, Adrianna is only one out of 5,000 girls in the last decade and a half to be brought to England illegally and forced into prostitution.
Fortunately, Adrianna is lucky to have escaped and found a safe place to stay in the Watson household. Without Casey’s care and determination to provide a future for her, Adrianna would have remained one of the “hidden children” that arrive in England every year.
Casey writes in a novel-like format, describing Adrianna’s circumstances from a carer’s point of view. Slowly revealing the secrets of Adrianna’s past, Casey keeps the reader interested in the same way a fiction author would with a clever plot line. Emphasising the difficulties Adrianna has, not only coming to terms with the abuse she has faced, but also worrying about whether authorities will allow her to remain in England, Casey appeals to the readers’ emotions, making it clear that, although here illegally, trafficked children have every right to be protected and looked after by British authorities.
Although Casey writes under a pseudonym, and assumedly alters all names within the book, it is not certain how much of the storyline is true, or whether the situation has been accentuated in order to capture the reader’s attention. This, however, is not important – people will read this for entertainment, therefore the accuracy of the content is not as significant as the way in which it is told. <i>Runaway Girl</i>, whilst shocking, is engaging and easy to read, with a satisfying ending.
<i>Runaway Girl</i> is the only book I have read from Casey Watson, yet I can tell she is a worthy and successful author. Her stories – at least the blurbs – seem similar to other authors, such as Torey Hayden, who also write about their experiences helping vulnerable children. Casey Watson’s book need not be read in any particular order; therefore <i>Runaway Girl</i> is as good a place as any to begin.
Casey Watson is a specialist foster carer who temporarily houses vulnerable children in emergency situations. Since working in this field for decades, she has been documenting her experiences in a series of books, each one focusing on a different child. Her thirteenth, and most recent book is <i>Runaway Girl</i>, aptly named about a (supposedly) fourteen-year-old girl, running away from several distressing situations.
Adrianna arrives on Casey’s doorstep with no possessions, no English and no passport. Apart from knowing she is Polish, Adrianna is a complete mystery to the Watson family and the services involved. With her sixth sense tingling, Casey is certain there is something important that Adrianna is hiding and, despite all her attempts, it is not until an emergency hospitalization that the frightened Polish girl starts telling the truth.
With a background of abuse, homelessness and sex trafficking, Adrianna’s story will open readers’ eyes to the shocking situations many foreign children find themselves. Unfortunately, Adrianna is only one out of 5,000 girls in the last decade and a half to be brought to England illegally and forced into prostitution.
Fortunately, Adrianna is lucky to have escaped and found a safe place to stay in the Watson household. Without Casey’s care and determination to provide a future for her, Adrianna would have remained one of the “hidden children” that arrive in England every year.
Casey writes in a novel-like format, describing Adrianna’s circumstances from a carer’s point of view. Slowly revealing the secrets of Adrianna’s past, Casey keeps the reader interested in the same way a fiction author would with a clever plot line. Emphasising the difficulties Adrianna has, not only coming to terms with the abuse she has faced, but also worrying about whether authorities will allow her to remain in England, Casey appeals to the readers’ emotions, making it clear that, although here illegally, trafficked children have every right to be protected and looked after by British authorities.
Although Casey writes under a pseudonym, and assumedly alters all names within the book, it is not certain how much of the storyline is true, or whether the situation has been accentuated in order to capture the reader’s attention. This, however, is not important – people will read this for entertainment, therefore the accuracy of the content is not as significant as the way in which it is told. <i>Runaway Girl</i>, whilst shocking, is engaging and easy to read, with a satisfying ending.
<i>Runaway Girl</i> is the only book I have read from Casey Watson, yet I can tell she is a worthy and successful author. Her stories – at least the blurbs – seem similar to other authors, such as Torey Hayden, who also write about their experiences helping vulnerable children. Casey Watson’s book need not be read in any particular order; therefore <i>Runaway Girl</i> is as good a place as any to begin.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Going in to Instant Family I had some reservations. I'm a big fan of Rose Byrne, her performance in last year's Juliet, Naked was a delight to watch, but on the flipside Mark Wahlberg and comedy don't come high on my must see list. Thankfully those thoughts were quickly dismissed as the times I laughed out loud soared into the double digits.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated All Is True (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have reservations about anything that Kenneth Branagh is in on the big screen. I'm sorry but I'm going to say it... he needs to stop. Stay behind the camera or on stage. I'm already pre-disappointed for Death On The Nile.
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Kingdom in Books
Oct 17, 2019
“Where Happily Ever After is not just a promise, but a rule”
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Most people when they hear the name Tonya Harding immediately have images of Nancy Kerrigan holding her knee and crying out “Why?” over and over again come to their minds. They may even think of Harding herself crying to a panel of judges about the state of the laces on her skates during Olympic competition. Her name and image became a point of ridicule and shame. She became the butt of jokes throughout the 90s and a never-ending punchline. People were not sympathetic to her and were not willing to hear her story. She was condemned to being the monster that we convinced ourselves that she was. The film I, Tonya sheds light onto who this woman was in demonstrating the complexities of her upbringing, years of abuse at the hands of her mother and later her husband. Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, Wolf of Wall Street) stars as Tonya Harding, the disgraced Olympic figure skater.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.