Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Storms of Malhado in Books
May 18, 2020
I admit that when I read the book synopsis for Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici and saw there were ghosts involved, I knew I had to read this book! While it turned out not to be so much of a ghost story but something much much more, it was still a great read!
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This really isn't a bad little film, it has its fun and implausible action, and you come away with a message of friendship for everyone to ponder on. It's obviously great Easter holiday fodder and it won't bore the parents, which is always half the battle with kids films.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Spill yer beans
The Lighthouse is cinematic perfection that will leave anyone that lets it engulf thier mind and senses broken, disturbed, traumatised and violated. An experience like no other I can not stress enough that everyone must whitness this utter masterpiece. Primarily a character study about two lighthouse keepers descent into madness however the way the film depicts this reaches far deeper than I ever even imagined it would. (Possible spoilers ahead) Theres an unquestionable comparison to Greek mythology here and as the film plays out Willem Dafoe character draws several comparisons to King Trident, Zeus and Minos but ultimatly ends up becoming one of his own 'God of the lighthouse' keeping his prized possession locked away at the top of his tower. Robert Pattison also compares to the Titan Prometheus trying to steel this possesion/fire from this so called god. He can also be compared to Icarus trapped in a tower by a mean man with no means of escape and Odysseus constantly distracted/infatuated with the Sirens surrounding the lighthouse. I found these comparisions integrated into the story beautifully and theres constant fable/mythological imagry to reinforce these comparisons too which is hauntingly striking and terrifyingly prominent. Atmosphere is pin sharp here and as these two men begin to break you feel everything that starts to grate on them bombarding your senses as a viewr too. Everything is communicated flawlessly to really draw the viewer in as if we too are stuck with these to men feeling evrything build up, irritate, torment and add to the degradation of the mind until it hits its breaking point. Floors creaking & bowing, metal bending and screeching, wind howling, waves crashing, rain beating down, shutters rattling and birds squawking its intense and realistic sound design thats for sure. Mix this with a constant sence of dread from the narrow corridors, looming shadows, low lighting, claustrophobic living quaters, fog, harsh weather, mud, anoying seagulls, restricted views, countless foul smells, hard back breaking work, sexual frustrations, loneliness and alcohol its enough to make anyone go insane and as the film plays out cabin fever really intensifies (especially for us with the film being shot in black and white and with a smaller aspect ratio). This is some of the best acting ive seen for sure both Dafoe and Pattison portray these characters so well that you would be convinced you were watching historic archive footage of two people cooped up. Both are devious liars, have vicious tempers and nasty streaks as well as mysterious pasts and both are also constantly in a fight for dominance of the lighthouse and the secrets it holds. In this day and age The lighthouse is such a true gem to behold and is so unique and engrossing you would swear it transported you back in time while watching it. I also did not expect this film to take the turn it does half way through either almost becoming a distressing horror movie and as intense as a tesuo film and as my friend and me left the screening we found ourselves deeply disturbed/traumatised with our hearts pounding from what we had just been exposed to. Disgustingly intense, depressingly dripping in sadness, brutaly violent and deeply unsettling the lighthouse is one hell of a movie and may just be one of the best movies I have ever seen, it really is without a doubt a cinema experience I will certainly never forget. Comparable to the witch, the turin horse and apocalypse now the lighthouse deserves all the praise its been getting and more. Stunning.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Cryptofauna in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-57.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Cryptofauna by Patrick Canning is definitely a read that will certainly stay in your memory, for how unique and random it is.
<b><i>Synopsis</i></b>
Jim is a janitor at an insane asylum and one day, he decides to commit a suicide at his workplace. But before he can do the deed, a mysterious resident at work equips him with a dog and a bag of ash, and throws him into a secret game known as Cryptofauna.
Cryptofauna is played by Operators, people with special abilities, who battle one another to influence important events around the world. To become an Operator, Jim must successfully pass a couple of exams, including surviving the Pacific Ocean, surviving some weird monks, and ultimately, passing the exam that proves his mind and soul are ready as well.
On top of this, there is his enemy as well, another Operator, who is forever his rival until the game ends.
This is how Cryptofauna works, in case you are curious. The image was sent to me by the author:
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/How-To-Play.jpg?resize=768%2C994&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
From the synopsis, I expected this book to be unique. However, I never expected to enter such a creative and random world. The events are all so random, the characters too. It is all very random and chaotic in a very interesting way. I am still struggling to decide whether I love this chaos or not.
This book is amazing in terms of creativity and world building.
The author is quite good at creating something new in a place where everything already exists. Patrick Canning managed to create a whole new reality within our real world. A place where Cryptofauna exists as a game and a way of life, and I was glad I entered that world.
There were times I felt very confused on what is happening. I had to re-read chapters and scenes, which resulted in average reading experience. I liked Jim as a character, and I loved how he slowly develops throughout the book and finds his true purpose in his life. As a person that was about to commit suicide, I felt he learned a valuable lesson to not give up. However I felt that the other characters had more liveliness in them (no pun intended, given the fact he wanted to kill himself). I actually loved the evil guy more. He had a recklessness about him that I found intriguing.
Overall, I did enjoy the creativity and the idea of the game itself. However, I felt very lost and confused at certain times, which made my experience less enjoyable. I still recommend it to you, if the synopsis intrigues you and you enjoy stories about good battling evil.
Thank you to the author, Patrick Canning, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-57.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Cryptofauna by Patrick Canning is definitely a read that will certainly stay in your memory, for how unique and random it is.
<b><i>Synopsis</i></b>
Jim is a janitor at an insane asylum and one day, he decides to commit a suicide at his workplace. But before he can do the deed, a mysterious resident at work equips him with a dog and a bag of ash, and throws him into a secret game known as Cryptofauna.
Cryptofauna is played by Operators, people with special abilities, who battle one another to influence important events around the world. To become an Operator, Jim must successfully pass a couple of exams, including surviving the Pacific Ocean, surviving some weird monks, and ultimately, passing the exam that proves his mind and soul are ready as well.
On top of this, there is his enemy as well, another Operator, who is forever his rival until the game ends.
This is how Cryptofauna works, in case you are curious. The image was sent to me by the author:
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/How-To-Play.jpg?resize=768%2C994&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
From the synopsis, I expected this book to be unique. However, I never expected to enter such a creative and random world. The events are all so random, the characters too. It is all very random and chaotic in a very interesting way. I am still struggling to decide whether I love this chaos or not.
This book is amazing in terms of creativity and world building.
The author is quite good at creating something new in a place where everything already exists. Patrick Canning managed to create a whole new reality within our real world. A place where Cryptofauna exists as a game and a way of life, and I was glad I entered that world.
There were times I felt very confused on what is happening. I had to re-read chapters and scenes, which resulted in average reading experience. I liked Jim as a character, and I loved how he slowly develops throughout the book and finds his true purpose in his life. As a person that was about to commit suicide, I felt he learned a valuable lesson to not give up. However I felt that the other characters had more liveliness in them (no pun intended, given the fact he wanted to kill himself). I actually loved the evil guy more. He had a recklessness about him that I found intriguing.
Overall, I did enjoy the creativity and the idea of the game itself. However, I felt very lost and confused at certain times, which made my experience less enjoyable. I still recommend it to you, if the synopsis intrigues you and you enjoy stories about good battling evil.
Thank you to the author, Patrick Canning, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!