Search
Search results
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Mother, Mother in Books
Jan 6, 2021
Joint review with Sylvia Crabtree.
Well this isn't our usual book at all, we usually stick to romance, but when mum won it in the Goodreads First Reads/Giveaways we thought we'd give it a try. And surprisingly, we liked it.
We think it was the suspense, wondering what had happened that night at dinner that caused Violet to be sent to the mental hospital. Had she really been that out of it that she couldn't remember hurting her brother? And if so, why couldn't anyone else remember? And what of Rose, the eldest, how did she fit into the story?
Trying to piece together what had happened to lead up to that night by seeing viewpoints of the youngest child, William, and the middle child, Violet: one who doesn't get on with their mum and one who does anything for a bit of motherly affection.
We found ourselves being drawn into the story the more we read and we cant say we were expecting what happened to Rose.
Josephine, the mum, came across as crazy at times and we felt sorry for her children. She could be so cruel to them at timesif they did something she didn't agree with.
Like we mentioned previously this was not our usual read but we have to admit it was a nice change from the norm.
Well this isn't our usual book at all, we usually stick to romance, but when mum won it in the Goodreads First Reads/Giveaways we thought we'd give it a try. And surprisingly, we liked it.
We think it was the suspense, wondering what had happened that night at dinner that caused Violet to be sent to the mental hospital. Had she really been that out of it that she couldn't remember hurting her brother? And if so, why couldn't anyone else remember? And what of Rose, the eldest, how did she fit into the story?
Trying to piece together what had happened to lead up to that night by seeing viewpoints of the youngest child, William, and the middle child, Violet: one who doesn't get on with their mum and one who does anything for a bit of motherly affection.
We found ourselves being drawn into the story the more we read and we cant say we were expecting what happened to Rose.
Josephine, the mum, came across as crazy at times and we felt sorry for her children. She could be so cruel to them at timesif they did something she didn't agree with.
Like we mentioned previously this was not our usual read but we have to admit it was a nice change from the norm.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Secrets of Paper and Ink in Books
Nov 4, 2019
Lindsay Harrel presents a powerful story of healing, forgiveness, and finding the courage to write your own story. A year after the death of her abusive fiancé, domestic violence counselor Sophia Barrett finds returning to work too painful. She escapes to Cornwall, England—a place she’s learned to love through the words of her favorite author—and finds a place to stay with the requirement that she help out in the bookstore underneath the room she’s renting. Given her love of all things literary, it seems like the perfect place to find peace. Ginny Rose is an American living in Cornwall, sure that if she saves the bookstore she co-owns with her husband then she can save her marriage as well. Fighting to keep the first place she feels like she belongs, she brainstorms with her brother-in-law, William, and Sophia to try to keep the charming bookstore afloat. More than 150 years before, governess Emily Fairfax knew two things for certain: she wanted to be a published author, and she was in love with her childhood best friend. But he was a wealthy heir and well out of her league. Sophia discovers Emily’s journals, and she and William embark on a mission to find out more about this mysterious and determined woman, all the while getting closer to each other as they get closer to the truth. The lives of the three women intertwine as each learns the power she has over the story of her life.
My Thoughts: This was a very compelling read for me. This is not just a story about one woman finding her healing from an abusive relationship but of three women finding out who they are and finding their true love.
I love the way the author combines the three lives of these women to form a story that the reader will be unable to put down.
There is a quote in the book that really stuck out to me "All we have in life are the choices we make. We must make choices we can live with - and die with if it comes to that". This is so true, life is made up of our choices, some may be good and others may not be so good. In the end, we have to live with our choices and the consequences of them. This is what Emily's father told her once and it was good advice. Emily is my favorite of the three women. She had a desire and she saw it through, she never gave up on her writing. She held to her convictions and had a love for others. She never let defeat get her down or to stop her from doing what she wanted to do.
I really enjoyed this novel, and I believe that other readers will enjoy it as much as I did; I think each reader will take something away with them from this novel. I hope to read more from this author.
My Thoughts: This was a very compelling read for me. This is not just a story about one woman finding her healing from an abusive relationship but of three women finding out who they are and finding their true love.
I love the way the author combines the three lives of these women to form a story that the reader will be unable to put down.
There is a quote in the book that really stuck out to me "All we have in life are the choices we make. We must make choices we can live with - and die with if it comes to that". This is so true, life is made up of our choices, some may be good and others may not be so good. In the end, we have to live with our choices and the consequences of them. This is what Emily's father told her once and it was good advice. Emily is my favorite of the three women. She had a desire and she saw it through, she never gave up on her writing. She held to her convictions and had a love for others. She never let defeat get her down or to stop her from doing what she wanted to do.
I really enjoyed this novel, and I believe that other readers will enjoy it as much as I did; I think each reader will take something away with them from this novel. I hope to read more from this author.
Illeana Douglas recommended Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.