Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Decent Japanese Travelling Communicator
Travel and Utilities
App
. Selected by Apple's App Store for Popular Travel Destinations: Japan "Travel Tools" app! . 蘋果...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “Wars” back into “Star Wars”.
Expectations have been sky-high for this first in the ‘add-in’ series of Star Wars films. But with director Gareth Edwards at the helm, whose past movie track-record includes just the low-budget “Monsters” and the less than memorable “Godzilla“, I was frankly concerned.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ambulance (2022) in Movies
Apr 18, 2022
Repetitive drone camera work (2 more)
Cringey humor and dialogue
An outdated and juvenile screenplay
Ambulance Review: Action At Its Dumbest And Gaudiest
Ambulance is a remake of a 2005 Danish film of the same name. Michael Bay’s version of the film follows former Marine Will Sharp (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as he struggles to find a job and support his family; his wife requires an experimental surgery that their health insurance won’t pay for.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Oct 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 20, 2018)
Slow West
I have decided to do something totally different for my Red Dead 2 review; instead of just reviewing it as a whole once I am finished with it, I am going to start my review just now and then continually add to it the further through it I progress. There are a few reasons for this, firstly because this game is huge and is probably too vast to sum up in just a few paragraphs once I have completed the story. Secondly, because we would all be waiting weeks for me to review it; I am not going to be done with this thing anytime soon. Third is because it's something new, a break from my traditional structure of writing reviews. Finally, because I feel that my opinion on this game is going to change based on the different things that I experience during my playthrough, along with my score of the game. There will also most likely be spoilers as we move on through the game, so maybe just read up to where you have also played to. Once I have completed the game, I may write a summary of my thoughts at the bottom of this review, or I might just scrap this and write a whole new review from scratch, we shall see.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Monster High (Monster High, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I am twenty years old and I loved this book more than I think an intelligent college student should. There were just way to many things that kept me from not turning the pages and walking away. In fact, I have only one negative thing to say about this book.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, <i>Small Great Thing</i>s is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are <s>intentionally</s> oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.