Search
Search results
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
Pleasantly Surprising
As I've mentioned before, I grew up during the 90s, and therefore, the Disney movies I have the fondest memories of run between Beauty & the Beast and Mulan. The original Aladdin's release in 1992 places it firmly it that era, and as such, is one that I lived as a kid. Couple this with the fact that I haven't particularly liked any of the live action Disney remakes so far, and this was one I was prepared to loathe.
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Immortal (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
You can't stop what's coming.
l'immortale is a good companion piece to possibly the greatest TV show of all time gomorra & while it does shed a bit more light on what sort of the life one of its best characters had at a younger age and where he is now i can't help but feel it's tainted one of the best twists the show has to offer overall. (WARNING: spoilers for gomorrah ahead but if your watching this anyway before you have seen the show I'd strongly advise not to). After surviving the incident on the boat at the end of season 3 Ciro begins a new life in Latvia caught working between Russian clans in Latvia. Long gone now are the days of him being a top dog & while he still has a certain celebrity status among people here he is undoubtedly someone else's bitch. He's a man that has absolutely nothing left to loose now & it's finally stating to take a toll on him mentally and physically. Marco D'Amore again is fantastic here & this time plays a more subjude Ciro. As a character he lacks confidence now & walks around with less pride & cockynes, he's not as sure of himself & personality wise he's alot quieter & socially distantanced. He also spends a lot of time thinking in silence, just remenising & taking in the scenery almost like life itself bores him now & he is just waiting for the day to come where someone puts him down. Marco D'Amore plays this character perfectly as always & as a viewer its great to see the mighty Ciro from a different light & helps us to feel his pain connecting with him in an alternative way to which we usually do. Marco D'Amore is also the director this time too & as a first film it's a really great effort but also at the same time he seems to really struggle finding an identity of his own & here lies my biggest problem with the movie. Far to often it feels like he's trying to just replicate Gomorra instead of taking the regins & putting his own spin on things (a bit like what ryan gosling did with the lost river trying to initiate nwr). Don't get me wrong is very similar to Gommora but it's not as griping, powerful, raw, gritty, impactful & full of tension like the show is & thus most of the scenes that use the same format either feel a bit hollow or off in some way. I did really enjoy the flash back scenes & seeing Ciro's upbringing & other tragidies that happen back then certainly do a great job of explaining why he's generally such a cold hearted desensitised person. What I can't understand is the main plot & that's mainly because the characters life had a fitting conclusion at the end of Gomorra season 3 so bringing him back now randomly for a movie just makes a very realistically grounded show seem a bit far fetched because while he maybe nicknamed the immortal after all he's still only human. All in all if it had just been a prequel film I think I'd of enjoyed it a lot more however if your a fan of the show & it's characters I would recommend seeing this as it definitely fills the time while waiting for season 5 & it absolutely proves Marco D'Amore shows promise as a director too.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ms. Marvel: Volume 3: Crushed in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review is really for the first three volumes, including this one.
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Haunted (Harrison Investigation, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
I picked up Haunted after I had finished [b:The Seance|959245|The Seance (Harrison Investigation, #5)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255876724s/959245.jpg|944150], and I was unaware that they both feature Adam and Harrison Investigations. I'm all set to read [b:The Vision|731809|The Vision (Harrison Investigation, #3)|Heather Graham|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1177781638s/731809.jpg|717999] that I just picked up from the library. Even though I've completely juggled around the order of when they were written, it's lucky for me that they are standalones. In the prologue it gave background information about Adam's son, Josh, who was mentioned just briefly in The Seance, and he plays a big part in this book, so I was happy to find out all that information before I get to next book that features Harrison Investigations.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.
Now to get to the main story in Haunted...
Even though with the way Darcy was written you would think she was a Mary-Sue, she wasn't and I liked her just fine. Now Matt on the other hand, well he was a jerk, plain and simple. I never could like him much and that detracted a lot from the book. It seems that Heather Graham must make the male lead a hard-core skeptic that just will not believe (until the end of course) in anything paranormal and thinks the female lead is crazy or delusional or something. It would be nice if it was reversed or if maybe, just maybe, the hero is open-minded enough to say, well maybe there is 'something' out there that cannot be proven. *gasp* Is that even possible? Can a hero ever truly be open-minded? Not in these books. He has to be so narrow-minded that his thought-blocks must fit neatly into their right-shaped holes (e.g. triangle block into triangle hole, etc.).
I really enjoyed the whole Darcy/Josh/Adam/Ghost hunting thing. I thought the author did a good job describing how Darcy went about finding out about the ghosts and that's what made this book good. I really did like Darcy a lot and she was a sympathetic character who stood up for herself and acted like an adult with poise and class (unlike some other character I could mention). The mystery did keep me guessing because I was never quite sure who the ghost was or what had happened, although I had narrowed down who was behind everything to two people, leaning more on the actual culprit (yay me!), for lack of suspects. So overall, the mystery was very good, though I wish Ms. Graham would bring in more people so it isn't as easy to figure out. All in all, not as good as The Seance, but a good and entertaining read.
3.5 stars
I forgot to mention that there were tons of editing problems, which seem to be a mainstay in H.G.'s books. Once Clint's name is changed to Cliff and Josh was referred to as Matt, plus numerous other things that cropped up everywhere.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Mountain in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I was really looking forward to this book because I’d seen loads of great reviews for it, unfortunately I did not enjoy this for a number of reasons… let me explain.
I want to start off this review on a positive note. I did initially enjoy this book. It was slow to take off and the accident in the Bletterbach was gone in seconds (when it seemed like such an important part of the plot!) but the mystery of the years old Bletterbach killings did grab my interest quite quickly and I was looking forward to knowing what the hell happened. Unfortunately, that’s where the good things I have to say end.
This book was so ridiculously drawn out and slow, it really couldn’t grab my attention for very long. I would read about 30 pages and then put it down because I was so bored by all the tedious, pointless descriptions and scene that weren’t necessary to progress the plot. Most of this novel was conversations between two people, that 90% of the time ended with no further information or revelations to the mystery. Then, the bits that weren’t people talking were extremely long, often times overly scientifics bit of information that I think were meant to be eye-opening and exciting, but instead they often confused me and were extremely boring to read.
The writing in this one was also a little weird. I always find I have a bit of trouble with translated books – they feel clunky to read – and this one felt just the same. The conversations that were had between people felt forced and unrealistic most of the time and there was no atmosphere whatsoever. When Salinger was down in the Bletterbach before the accident, there was no nail-biting edge of the seat moment, and again, when he was experiencing his panic attacks, these was no tension or feeling of claustrophobia. I was hoping this was going to give me the same creeped out, terrified feelings that The White Road did, but it let me down.
I thought that maybe while I was being put to sleep by the slow moving story, I might enjoy the characters, however I was disappointed by those too. More specifically, by Salinger, our main character. I hated him. I really, really hated him. He didn’t progress as a character after everything he had been through and no matter how many times his wife came to him angry and distraught at what he was doing. Throughout the novel he was just an awful person, always thinking about throwing a punch and being inconsiderate to other people. There really was nothing nice about him. And then the other characters in the story played such small parts that we really didn’t get to know them very well. Even Werner who seemed to play an important part of the story didn’t get much “screen” time.
In the end, I skim read the last 100 pages of this novel! I’m still counting it as a full read because I pushed myself through <b><i>t h r e e h u n d r e d</b></i> tedious pages. The conclusion of the mystery was disappointing to say the least and I’m glad I didn’t attempt to read the rest of the story.
Overall, I really didn’t enjoy this book, apart from maybe the first 50 pages. I wouldn’t recommend this one, I think there are plenty of better similar books out there that you could pick up instead.
<i>Thanks to Bookbridgr and MacLehose Press for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review. I’m just sorry I didn’t enjoy it!</i>
I want to start off this review on a positive note. I did initially enjoy this book. It was slow to take off and the accident in the Bletterbach was gone in seconds (when it seemed like such an important part of the plot!) but the mystery of the years old Bletterbach killings did grab my interest quite quickly and I was looking forward to knowing what the hell happened. Unfortunately, that’s where the good things I have to say end.
This book was so ridiculously drawn out and slow, it really couldn’t grab my attention for very long. I would read about 30 pages and then put it down because I was so bored by all the tedious, pointless descriptions and scene that weren’t necessary to progress the plot. Most of this novel was conversations between two people, that 90% of the time ended with no further information or revelations to the mystery. Then, the bits that weren’t people talking were extremely long, often times overly scientifics bit of information that I think were meant to be eye-opening and exciting, but instead they often confused me and were extremely boring to read.
The writing in this one was also a little weird. I always find I have a bit of trouble with translated books – they feel clunky to read – and this one felt just the same. The conversations that were had between people felt forced and unrealistic most of the time and there was no atmosphere whatsoever. When Salinger was down in the Bletterbach before the accident, there was no nail-biting edge of the seat moment, and again, when he was experiencing his panic attacks, these was no tension or feeling of claustrophobia. I was hoping this was going to give me the same creeped out, terrified feelings that The White Road did, but it let me down.
I thought that maybe while I was being put to sleep by the slow moving story, I might enjoy the characters, however I was disappointed by those too. More specifically, by Salinger, our main character. I hated him. I really, really hated him. He didn’t progress as a character after everything he had been through and no matter how many times his wife came to him angry and distraught at what he was doing. Throughout the novel he was just an awful person, always thinking about throwing a punch and being inconsiderate to other people. There really was nothing nice about him. And then the other characters in the story played such small parts that we really didn’t get to know them very well. Even Werner who seemed to play an important part of the story didn’t get much “screen” time.
In the end, I skim read the last 100 pages of this novel! I’m still counting it as a full read because I pushed myself through <b><i>t h r e e h u n d r e d</b></i> tedious pages. The conclusion of the mystery was disappointing to say the least and I’m glad I didn’t attempt to read the rest of the story.
Overall, I really didn’t enjoy this book, apart from maybe the first 50 pages. I wouldn’t recommend this one, I think there are plenty of better similar books out there that you could pick up instead.
<i>Thanks to Bookbridgr and MacLehose Press for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review. I’m just sorry I didn’t enjoy it!</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Inventive, funny and poignant
Writer/Director/Actor Taika Waititi is one of the most original voices working in Film/Television today. He skewered the Vampire flick (at the height of the Twilight craze) in WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. He revived the sagging Thor saga (and some would say the Marvel Cinematic Universe) with a comedic approach to the material in THOR: RAGNAROK, and now with his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, he takes his sense of humor to a subject that is difficult to satire - Adolph Hitler and life in Nazi Germany during WW II.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
Hazel (1853 KP) rated H2O (The Rain, #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>Thank you to NetGalley and Pan Macmillan for providing a proof copy to read and review.</i>
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
This book is a great debut novel for Kepnes, I haven’t read a stalker book before and was intrigued, however in parts it felt a bit repetitive, I didn’t like any of the characters in the book and I was starting to get a little bored with the story. The book is written in such a way that it feels like Joe is actually talking about you….ha ha ha see what I did there!*hangs head* So it can be a very creepy book depending on how you read it.
Joe is a total psychopath! I didn’t like him at all, he stalks Beck to no-end, he has Facebook, twitter, email accounts and watching her every move. He is obsessed with Beck and is determined to be her boyfriend and nothing will get in his way.The thing that shocked me the most was that he didn’t believe he had issues and that he was actually protecting her from her friends and other men that looked her way.
Beck is so annoying I really didn’t like her, she was an attention seeking little cow-bag, she had her own issues but would flaunt around with no bra on and get dressed in front of her window that had no blinds or curtains. Flirt with pretty much anyone. And I know this is probably awful to say but she brought a lot of this on herself. She is such a user as well, she was stringing Joe along at times just for odd job duties and I was starting to feel sorry for him, but I had to remind myself that he was the one in the wrong and I shouldnt be feeling like this.
I felt the story went on a little too long and I was getting bored in places, it was sometimes just him constantly checking email updates and tweets to see if beck was thinking about him. It was a bit predictable as well, even though I haven’t read a stalker book I figured it out pretty early on.
This is a book that will make you step back and have a reality check, there could be someone stalking you but you just don’t know it. With all the social media and how easy it is for people to access the information is very scary.
This is an adult book and does contain explicit language and sexual scenes so it will not be for everyone or a younger audience.
Overall I rated this 3.5 stars out of 5.
Joe is a total psychopath! I didn’t like him at all, he stalks Beck to no-end, he has Facebook, twitter, email accounts and watching her every move. He is obsessed with Beck and is determined to be her boyfriend and nothing will get in his way.The thing that shocked me the most was that he didn’t believe he had issues and that he was actually protecting her from her friends and other men that looked her way.
Beck is so annoying I really didn’t like her, she was an attention seeking little cow-bag, she had her own issues but would flaunt around with no bra on and get dressed in front of her window that had no blinds or curtains. Flirt with pretty much anyone. And I know this is probably awful to say but she brought a lot of this on herself. She is such a user as well, she was stringing Joe along at times just for odd job duties and I was starting to feel sorry for him, but I had to remind myself that he was the one in the wrong and I shouldnt be feeling like this.
I felt the story went on a little too long and I was getting bored in places, it was sometimes just him constantly checking email updates and tweets to see if beck was thinking about him. It was a bit predictable as well, even though I haven’t read a stalker book I figured it out pretty early on.
This is a book that will make you step back and have a reality check, there could be someone stalking you but you just don’t know it. With all the social media and how easy it is for people to access the information is very scary.
This is an adult book and does contain explicit language and sexual scenes so it will not be for everyone or a younger audience.
Overall I rated this 3.5 stars out of 5.