Search
Business Inspiration Classics
Business and Book
App
Get a head start in business and professional life with this collection of over 27 best classics on...
Track My Steps - Pedometer Activity Tracker
Health & Fitness and Productivity
App
Track My Steps - Pedometer Activity Tracker automatically and accurately tracks your daily walk and...
Basic Yoga For Beginners - Home Workout Guide For Beginners, Weight Loss & Flexibility
Catalogs and Health & Fitness
App
Basic Yoga For...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Mothergamer (1546 KP) rated the PC version of The Witcher III: Wild Hunt in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I was excited to play Witcher 3 Complete Edition as I had never played it before, yet I had read all the books about the Witcher Geralt and liked them a lot. I have not played the first two games, but they are both on my to play list. Geralt's world is interesting filled with complex characters, fantastic monsters, and great storytelling. All I can say is that I have a ton of games to play and some things get backlogged. I still have a stack of PS3 games to play and of course, I'll be playing the remastered Skyrim for PS4 when it comes out and that's another game I haven't played yet, but for this moment let's discuss how much I loved Witcher 3.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Summer of Salt in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Beautifully well-written with excellent characters and a powerful message
In Georgina Fernweh's family, it's just accepted: the Fernweh women have magic. Every female in Georgina's family has received their magic by age of eighteen. Georgina is almost eighteen, though, and she's shown no sign of getting her magic. Her twin sister, Mary, has floated since birth. Mary and Georgina live on an island, By-the-Sea, which isn't a regular place to grow up. Strange things happen here: it could snow one minute and be sunny and 70 the next. Their mother concocts sleeping potions when the girls can't sleep. And every summer people flock to the island to watch a three-hundred-year old bird who may or may not be a Fernweh ancestor. But when something terrible happens on the island, the Fernweh family (and their magic) comes under a suspicious light. And Georgina starts to wonder about her past--and future.
I picked up this book thanks to my Goodreads friend Melanie, whose review convinced me that this was worth reading. I so rarely read a book that wasn't planned, so thanks! This was totally worth it. This is a beautiful book--it's well-written, lyrical, and a magical read, both in content and writing.
The storyline on this one is amazing--I have a soft spot for tales about twins. I really liked the dynamic between Georgina and Mary: it was very realistic. The characters are well-developed, and I fell for Georgina immediately. There's also a wonderful lesbian storyline, which is always a plus. The book weaves a mystical, magical tale--if you can't suspend disbelief easily, it might not be for you. But it's so easy to get caught up in the plot, and at its core, it's a story about families and love.
"'Well, you won't have me at college, so you'll have to make some new friends.' 'Ugh. That sounds exhausting. They should assign you friends like they assign you a roommate.'"
There's also some serious parts to this book and some just freaking amazing quotes related to sexual assault and rape that I wanted to blow up and put on the walls of every high school everywhere. I won't quote most of them here, due to spoilers, but wow--this is a powerful, powerful novel that had me pumping my fist and cheering for the characters. There's some real strength here and a message everyone should read, especially in our current times.
"Because there was nothing in a girl's history that might negate her right to choose what happens to her body."
Overall, this was a great book. It's beautifully well-written with excellent characters and a powerful message. This is one where I would love a second book to follow these characters.
I picked up this book thanks to my Goodreads friend Melanie, whose review convinced me that this was worth reading. I so rarely read a book that wasn't planned, so thanks! This was totally worth it. This is a beautiful book--it's well-written, lyrical, and a magical read, both in content and writing.
The storyline on this one is amazing--I have a soft spot for tales about twins. I really liked the dynamic between Georgina and Mary: it was very realistic. The characters are well-developed, and I fell for Georgina immediately. There's also a wonderful lesbian storyline, which is always a plus. The book weaves a mystical, magical tale--if you can't suspend disbelief easily, it might not be for you. But it's so easy to get caught up in the plot, and at its core, it's a story about families and love.
"'Well, you won't have me at college, so you'll have to make some new friends.' 'Ugh. That sounds exhausting. They should assign you friends like they assign you a roommate.'"
There's also some serious parts to this book and some just freaking amazing quotes related to sexual assault and rape that I wanted to blow up and put on the walls of every high school everywhere. I won't quote most of them here, due to spoilers, but wow--this is a powerful, powerful novel that had me pumping my fist and cheering for the characters. There's some real strength here and a message everyone should read, especially in our current times.
"Because there was nothing in a girl's history that might negate her right to choose what happens to her body."
Overall, this was a great book. It's beautifully well-written with excellent characters and a powerful message. This is one where I would love a second book to follow these characters.
Origen: A True Story Of Evil
Peter J. Perry and Kathleen Sumpton
8.0
Rate It
Book
Have you ever come face to face with the devil? In a tapestry of sports, business, and dating, there...
True Crime
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Adele: The Forgotten Sister of Fred Astaire in Books
May 16, 2020
Thank you to Booksirens for sending me an advance review copy for free. I am leaving this review voluntarily.
I was intrigued by Adele when I first applied for an ARC: it isn't my usual kind of read but although I have heard of Fred Astaire (mainly from my grandma) I didn't know anything about his sister Adele, so I decided to give the book a go. Wow I am glad I did!
Nicola Cassidy brings the Astaires to life through her amazing writing. The majority of the novel is told from Adele's perspective: starting from when she is just a child. Cassidy, in turn, writes in a childish, conversationalist prose with this becoming steadily more mature along with our protagonist . By presenting Adele's life through her own eyes the reader feels her pain intensely: particularly towards the end of the novel. I'm not ashamed to say I was openly weeping at certain points.
Some critics may say that anyone can take a universally emotive topic and make you cry during a story. Well Cassidy goes one step further: through the character of Adele's father and the contrasting relationship she has with her mother and brother, the reader also witnesses the overwhelming feeling of absence- almost numbness towards the patriarchal figure. Similarly we also feel apprehension when we can recognise history repeating itself before Adele does: we can predict that this ending will not be an altogether happy one and it is this foresight and empathy that Nicola Cassidy creates which is unparalleled with any other book I have read recently.
Adele (the novel and the character) has glitz, glamour, heartache and inspiration. However, the novel has a steadying undertone with the changing effect of World War Two and the presence of several working class, dedicated women at the heart of the story.
Nowadays, it may be Fred Astaire who springs to mind but it was Adele who paved the way: it's about time she was given the chance to step out from her brother's shadow and regain the spotlight once again.
I was intrigued by Adele when I first applied for an ARC: it isn't my usual kind of read but although I have heard of Fred Astaire (mainly from my grandma) I didn't know anything about his sister Adele, so I decided to give the book a go. Wow I am glad I did!
Nicola Cassidy brings the Astaires to life through her amazing writing. The majority of the novel is told from Adele's perspective: starting from when she is just a child. Cassidy, in turn, writes in a childish, conversationalist prose with this becoming steadily more mature along with our protagonist . By presenting Adele's life through her own eyes the reader feels her pain intensely: particularly towards the end of the novel. I'm not ashamed to say I was openly weeping at certain points.
Some critics may say that anyone can take a universally emotive topic and make you cry during a story. Well Cassidy goes one step further: through the character of Adele's father and the contrasting relationship she has with her mother and brother, the reader also witnesses the overwhelming feeling of absence- almost numbness towards the patriarchal figure. Similarly we also feel apprehension when we can recognise history repeating itself before Adele does: we can predict that this ending will not be an altogether happy one and it is this foresight and empathy that Nicola Cassidy creates which is unparalleled with any other book I have read recently.
Adele (the novel and the character) has glitz, glamour, heartache and inspiration. However, the novel has a steadying undertone with the changing effect of World War Two and the presence of several working class, dedicated women at the heart of the story.
Nowadays, it may be Fred Astaire who springs to mind but it was Adele who paved the way: it's about time she was given the chance to step out from her brother's shadow and regain the spotlight once again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Free State of Jones (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we look at the Civil War period, we are often confronted with numbers: the numbers of the dead, the numbers of those fighting, the pay, the amount of bullets and munitions used. One thing we rarely discuss is depth with regard to the people and circumstances surrounding the war. We are concerned with particular battles and what major leaders were victorious or fell. We, either through school or the collective of movies created about the period, do not get to see the people for who they are and the variables surrounding their existence during this period. We do not have the ability to comprehend how the war affected them in losing their property, loved ones, or even how they face starvation and violence. We don’t get the chance to see slaves other than a myopic, generalized representation that doesn’t show us how they were able to survive in the face of danger multiple sides. The Free State of Jones corrects many of the mistakes and missed opportunities of previous films, of which there are many, that deal with slavery, the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, and the South.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Eat Pray Love: One Woman's Search for Everything in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I started this book with the warning that the author comes off as very selfish. Considering that this is a memoir, I don't really see what the big deal is. The best way for me to review this book is in three parts, since the book is divided that way. The epiphany that Gilbert has about herself at the beginning of the book I felt I could relate to in some ways - I know what it feels like to spend years gearing yourself up to do something at a certain age, only to arrive and realize that you don't want to do it - and be shocked by this realization. The specifics of her realization were quite different from mine, as I have always wanted children and I could not imagine never having any, but what bugged me was that her husband could not grasp this epiphany of hers. Luckily, the book was more about her than about her mysterious ex-husband.
As for her trip to Italy, I loved every page of it. I felt like I was living it through her words and experiences, wishing I was there with her to taste the food and learn the language. Italy has always been a dream of mine, though I intend to visit the sites, too, not just experience the food and language. I found the scene in which she is fasinated by the Italian man cursing at the soccer game to be a great example of her love for Italy and something I would probably do myself. I was only disappointed that this section was not longer and she did not go into greater detail about everything that she ate. I will certainly have to remember to try the pizza in Naples.
I found her trip to India the most difficult to get through, especially when I reached the point in which she decides to not do any traveling around India - a major disappointment for me. Richard from Texas was the highlight of this section for me, since he seemed to be the most down-to-earth of all the interesting people she meets here, and offers her the soundest advice. The focus of this section was on spirituality, but as it is heavily influenced by Eastern religions, I found myself disagreeing with many of her personal beliefs, even though I admired her dedication and determination. Her views of "kundalini shakti" are a perfect example - Christianity teaches that this is a demonic / occult practice, but Gilbert believes that it is the same thing as the Holy Spirit. This section alone is proof enough for me as to why I stay away from philosophical books.
Her final trip to Bali, Indonesia was educational in many ways, as I knew nothing about the culture and history there. Her medicine man, Ketut Liyer, was quite an interesting character, and I really felt for the young man she befriended, Yudhi, who was forced unfairly to leave the United States thanks to the Homeland Security Act. I find it interesting that she failed in completing her year of celibacy, but I'm sure those Brazilian men can be quite tempting when they want to be. Those who say that Gilbert appears very selfish in this book seem to ignore that she helped a divorced woman - an unheard-of thing in Bali - with three children, obtained a piece of land for her own home and business before Gilbert had to leave the country.
Overall, this year in the life of Elizabeth Gilbert was certainly a memorable one, and one that many, many other women would happily take her place in. I don't find her any more selfish than anyone else who is trying to find a way out of grief and depression, as well as break destructive cycles in his or her life. She was just blessed enough to be payed for the effort to document the experience.
As for her trip to Italy, I loved every page of it. I felt like I was living it through her words and experiences, wishing I was there with her to taste the food and learn the language. Italy has always been a dream of mine, though I intend to visit the sites, too, not just experience the food and language. I found the scene in which she is fasinated by the Italian man cursing at the soccer game to be a great example of her love for Italy and something I would probably do myself. I was only disappointed that this section was not longer and she did not go into greater detail about everything that she ate. I will certainly have to remember to try the pizza in Naples.
I found her trip to India the most difficult to get through, especially when I reached the point in which she decides to not do any traveling around India - a major disappointment for me. Richard from Texas was the highlight of this section for me, since he seemed to be the most down-to-earth of all the interesting people she meets here, and offers her the soundest advice. The focus of this section was on spirituality, but as it is heavily influenced by Eastern religions, I found myself disagreeing with many of her personal beliefs, even though I admired her dedication and determination. Her views of "kundalini shakti" are a perfect example - Christianity teaches that this is a demonic / occult practice, but Gilbert believes that it is the same thing as the Holy Spirit. This section alone is proof enough for me as to why I stay away from philosophical books.
Her final trip to Bali, Indonesia was educational in many ways, as I knew nothing about the culture and history there. Her medicine man, Ketut Liyer, was quite an interesting character, and I really felt for the young man she befriended, Yudhi, who was forced unfairly to leave the United States thanks to the Homeland Security Act. I find it interesting that she failed in completing her year of celibacy, but I'm sure those Brazilian men can be quite tempting when they want to be. Those who say that Gilbert appears very selfish in this book seem to ignore that she helped a divorced woman - an unheard-of thing in Bali - with three children, obtained a piece of land for her own home and business before Gilbert had to leave the country.
Overall, this year in the life of Elizabeth Gilbert was certainly a memorable one, and one that many, many other women would happily take her place in. I don't find her any more selfish than anyone else who is trying to find a way out of grief and depression, as well as break destructive cycles in his or her life. She was just blessed enough to be payed for the effort to document the experience.