Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Theory of Opposites in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Willa Chandler-Golden grew up in the shadow of her famous father, a renowned scientist and self-help author whose advice about just leading your life and giving into your fate has basically taken over Willa's entire life. Case in point: she is actually named William, since she was "supposed" to be a boy and her father assumed it was her fate to be named William. Willa is now married, but her life seems to be falling apart at the seams - she's been let go from her job and her husband, Shawn, wants a "break" from their seemingly happily married life. Willa needs to decide if she's really on board with her Dad's laissez faire theory, or if she's ready to take charge of her own life.
I stumbled across this book on the library's ebook website and it was basically exactly what I wanted/expected - a simple, fun, easy read. Willa is a frustrating character at times - girl has absolutely no ability to stand up for herself or take charge of her life sometimes! However, as you get to know her family, it does make a little sense. The book is silly at times and a little crazy and fantastical, but it's fun, and the outcome isn't entirely predictable. A good, quick read.
I stumbled across this book on the library's ebook website and it was basically exactly what I wanted/expected - a simple, fun, easy read. Willa is a frustrating character at times - girl has absolutely no ability to stand up for herself or take charge of her life sometimes! However, as you get to know her family, it does make a little sense. The book is silly at times and a little crazy and fantastical, but it's fun, and the outcome isn't entirely predictable. A good, quick read.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Strong Island (2017) in Movies
Sep 15, 2017
Hugely tragic, a family destroyed
I wasn't sure what to expect with this new Netflix documentary film especially as it was tipped alongside the likes of The Confession Tapes and The Keepers.
However, this was rather different. This wasn't about getting to the bottom of a mystery. This was about a family's personal tragedy - in this case, the family of the director Yance Ford. At the time of this film she had not started her transition to becoming transgender, so he now refers as a male.
His story is about the death of his older brother William, shot dead by a white man in dubious self defence circumstances. It shows how his family struggled to cope in the aftermath, and there's a scene where the director cries in agony and it is sheer horror to watch it. A delicately tragic insight into Ford's trauma.
However, this was rather different. This wasn't about getting to the bottom of a mystery. This was about a family's personal tragedy - in this case, the family of the director Yance Ford. At the time of this film she had not started her transition to becoming transgender, so he now refers as a male.
His story is about the death of his older brother William, shot dead by a white man in dubious self defence circumstances. It shows how his family struggled to cope in the aftermath, and there's a scene where the director cries in agony and it is sheer horror to watch it. A delicately tragic insight into Ford's trauma.
Hans Ulrich Obrist recommended The Red Book in Books (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 10, 2020
Still largely prefer the viscera of gross circus-esque horror movie eye candy of 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1000 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘴, but this one somehow might be more repulsive and disturbing. I'm astounded this movie even works at all, revisiting such ostentatious caricatures by way of Americana on-the-run crime movie should never have worked - but not only did it manage to be one of the best crime thrillers of the 21st century, but it also set the template for how more sequels oughta look into telling their story, by completely flipping the script and going with an entirely different genre while still maintaining the root of what makes the characters so great. Loaded with moody desolate (both physically and morally) cinematography, a deliciously over-the-top William Forsythe villain, pounds upon pounds of stomach-churning brutality, and a rich late-70s tone that takes over anything from the aesthetic to the soundtrack. Zombie has created some of the hall-of-fame best horror movie characters ever put to screen through Baby, Otis, and Captain Spaulding - not only gleefully cruel, unique, and uproariously riveting but also able to see the fault of their own detrimental wickedness yet still choosing not to change even if they could. Their own self-destructiveness isn't even allowed to take full hold because of the American system they're forced to act within, also the "Free Bird" ending is as amazing as everyone says.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Children of a Lesser God (1986) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
Unfortunately doesn't come out entirely unscathed from stage to screen, a touch too long and a touch too slow for this to be consistently potent - and some segments are a bit too writerly even for me as well as the occasional Broadway banality here and there that sort of brings this to a lull in the middle. But all the same, this is surprisingly complex and fragile filmmaking on the subject for 1986. On a technical note the music and visuals are hushed rhapsody together, and I particularly admire how there's an expressive intimacy in the conversations Hurt has with deaf characters whereas there's this palpably cold distance in the ones he has with hearing ones - an aspect that seems almost intrinsic. And on that note I also have to appreciate how it confronts Hurt's fixer mentality *as well as* Matlin's resistant anger rather than making the deaf character ultimately bend to the will of the 'virtuous helper' 'for their own good'. William Hurt is sensational, and Marlee Matlin is in one of the top-tier greatest performances of the 80s - the fact that they self-gratifyingly gave her their pity award and then immediately refused to cast her in much else is evidence #18,000 on why the Oscars are rancid bullshit. On top of all of that it's packed with awesome scenes and it's just a damn good romance... though if I have one more quibble: do the hearing characters really need to repeat aloud every fucking thing the deaf characters sign to them to absolutely no one at all but themselves like they're talking to a toddler? This really couldn't have been subtitled? But I digress, I still cried multiple times so we aight.
I received a digital copy from the author in exchange for an honest review.
Contemporary, young adult, romance, fantasy, steampunk, action... is there any category this book does not fit in to?! Jordan Elizabeth takes readers on a journey from New York to a fantasy world that very few knows exist in her recent novel Lock. Sarah Lockwood, the protagonist, thought the Realm was a story her late father used to tell her, however, when she discovers it is real, she jumps at the chance to visit, not realising the dangers that lie ahead.
Sarah is a self-sufficient young woman who has been living with her belly-dancing aunt since the death of her parents. Invited to stay with her Uncle William, she feels obliged to accept, however, almost regrets the decision after the cold welcome she receives. The gardener's son Archer, however, soon takes her mind off her troubles, particularly when he suggests travelling to a parallel world.
Archer comes from a family of Record Writers and it is his job to record the daily goings-on in the Realm. Sarah soon learns the Realm no longer lives up to the descriptions in the fairytales. A usurper has murdered the royal family and the inhabitants live in constant fear and poverty. Whilst this is shocking, Sarah unveils another revelation: the usurper is someone from her world, someone very close to home.
Although Lock has similarities with fantasy lands such as Narnia, it is written for a slightly older generation of readers. Sarah is 19 years old and some scenes are markedly "adult". There is also a lot of bloodshed and the occasional expletive. Nonetheless, it is a fast-paced, exciting story.
Once again, Jordan Elizabeth has written a book that is unlike the others she has written before. It is difficult to categorise the author and her novels since they are so diverse, however, one thing is for sure: Jordan Elizabeth knows how to tell a good story.
Contemporary, young adult, romance, fantasy, steampunk, action... is there any category this book does not fit in to?! Jordan Elizabeth takes readers on a journey from New York to a fantasy world that very few knows exist in her recent novel Lock. Sarah Lockwood, the protagonist, thought the Realm was a story her late father used to tell her, however, when she discovers it is real, she jumps at the chance to visit, not realising the dangers that lie ahead.
Sarah is a self-sufficient young woman who has been living with her belly-dancing aunt since the death of her parents. Invited to stay with her Uncle William, she feels obliged to accept, however, almost regrets the decision after the cold welcome she receives. The gardener's son Archer, however, soon takes her mind off her troubles, particularly when he suggests travelling to a parallel world.
Archer comes from a family of Record Writers and it is his job to record the daily goings-on in the Realm. Sarah soon learns the Realm no longer lives up to the descriptions in the fairytales. A usurper has murdered the royal family and the inhabitants live in constant fear and poverty. Whilst this is shocking, Sarah unveils another revelation: the usurper is someone from her world, someone very close to home.
Although Lock has similarities with fantasy lands such as Narnia, it is written for a slightly older generation of readers. Sarah is 19 years old and some scenes are markedly "adult". There is also a lot of bloodshed and the occasional expletive. Nonetheless, it is a fast-paced, exciting story.
Once again, Jordan Elizabeth has written a book that is unlike the others she has written before. It is difficult to categorise the author and her novels since they are so diverse, however, one thing is for sure: Jordan Elizabeth knows how to tell a good story.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Harriet Tubman was among one of the most significant abolitionists in United States history. This film tells the story of her life where she was born in Maryland as a plantation slave. Named Araminta at “Minty” Ross, she transforms throughout her journey, becoming Harriet Tubman as well as transforming into Moses, the appropriate name for the person who leads.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Tony Stark, (Robert Downey Jr.), life has become very complicated for the self-proclaimed genius, philanthropist, billionaire, and playboy. In the new film “Iron Man 3”, Stark is wracked by insomnia and dread following the battle he waged to save New York in “The Avengers”.
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.