Search
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Witchfinder's Sister in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i><b>I think now that to be close to someone can be to underestimate them. Grow too close, and you do not see what they are capable of; or you do not see it in time.</b></i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Ali A (78 KP) rated We Deserve Monuments in Books
Dec 8, 2022
Trigger Warnings: Generational trauma, racism, mentions of alcoholism and verbal abuse, homophobia, character death
Avery Anderson’s life is uprooted when her family moves from Washington DC to Bardell, Georgia her senior year of high school to look after her maternal grandmother, Mama Letty, who’s in her final stages of cancer. Avery only remembers one visit with her grandmother, cut short by an argument, when she was very young. Bardell is a small town with only two high schools - one public, and one private, the latter being founded by one of the town’s many racist forefathers. Avery quickly gets adopted into the friendship of two girls: Simone Cole, Mama Letty’s next door neighbor, and Jade Oliver, a descendent of one of Bardell’s oldest families.
Avery’s relationship with her grandmother is far from easy. Mama Letty isn’t easy to get to know, especially when she only answers questions in grunts and gruffs. It also doesn’t help that the tension between her mother and grandmother is so thick you can cut it with a knife, but both of them are refusing to address it.
Avery sets out on trying to mend the broken and split relationship but there are events many are refusing to talk about. It isn’t until Mama Letty begins to open up to Avery about her past, that Avery is able to piece together her family history that was shaped by the town’s racist history. As more events come out of the shadows, Avery must decide if finding out the truth is worth damaging the relationships she’s built in Bardell, or if some things are better left buried.
I absolutely loved and adored this book very much. Jas Hammonds masterfully tells this layered story of a young woman finding out about her family’s past within a novel that’s about generational trauma and racism. The amount of trauma the three generations of women must peel back is constantly met with tension. The story is hard to read at times, especially when you’re reading about Mama Letty’s past and the town’s racism, but this book wrapped its arms around me and refused to let go until the Harding family’s story is told.
Alongside Avery finding out about her family’s past, the relationship between Simone and Avery grows deeper and the way the two of them find their footing to their sexuality was well written. I wish I had grown up with a place like The Renaissance where you were accepted no matter what.
Overall, this novel is going to be one I’m going to talk about for months to come. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, hopeful, and captivating. Any readers who love reading about family and their dynamics, relationships, and hope will really enjoy this book.
*Thank you Roaring Brook Press and NetGalley for an electronic version of this book in exchange for an honest review
Avery Anderson’s life is uprooted when her family moves from Washington DC to Bardell, Georgia her senior year of high school to look after her maternal grandmother, Mama Letty, who’s in her final stages of cancer. Avery only remembers one visit with her grandmother, cut short by an argument, when she was very young. Bardell is a small town with only two high schools - one public, and one private, the latter being founded by one of the town’s many racist forefathers. Avery quickly gets adopted into the friendship of two girls: Simone Cole, Mama Letty’s next door neighbor, and Jade Oliver, a descendent of one of Bardell’s oldest families.
Avery’s relationship with her grandmother is far from easy. Mama Letty isn’t easy to get to know, especially when she only answers questions in grunts and gruffs. It also doesn’t help that the tension between her mother and grandmother is so thick you can cut it with a knife, but both of them are refusing to address it.
Avery sets out on trying to mend the broken and split relationship but there are events many are refusing to talk about. It isn’t until Mama Letty begins to open up to Avery about her past, that Avery is able to piece together her family history that was shaped by the town’s racist history. As more events come out of the shadows, Avery must decide if finding out the truth is worth damaging the relationships she’s built in Bardell, or if some things are better left buried.
I absolutely loved and adored this book very much. Jas Hammonds masterfully tells this layered story of a young woman finding out about her family’s past within a novel that’s about generational trauma and racism. The amount of trauma the three generations of women must peel back is constantly met with tension. The story is hard to read at times, especially when you’re reading about Mama Letty’s past and the town’s racism, but this book wrapped its arms around me and refused to let go until the Harding family’s story is told.
Alongside Avery finding out about her family’s past, the relationship between Simone and Avery grows deeper and the way the two of them find their footing to their sexuality was well written. I wish I had grown up with a place like The Renaissance where you were accepted no matter what.
Overall, this novel is going to be one I’m going to talk about for months to come. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, hopeful, and captivating. Any readers who love reading about family and their dynamics, relationships, and hope will really enjoy this book.
*Thank you Roaring Brook Press and NetGalley for an electronic version of this book in exchange for an honest review
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Gone for Good in Books
Aug 26, 2021
An excellent mystery where a cold case intersects with a new murder
In the 1990s, the Lovelorn Killer killed seven women and disappeared. The last known victim was Katherine Duffy, the wife of a police officer, who was killed on Halloween. After twenty years, many wonder if he's gone for good. But a group of amateur online sleuths, known as the Grave Diggers, don't think that. They take on cold cases and investigate them. One of these Diggers is Grace Harper, a grocery store worker. Grace is sure the Lovelorn Killer is out there, blending into the same neighborhoods he hunted in. Detective Annalisa Vega's father--also a cop--was partnered with Katie Duffy's husband back in the day. Her murder was a defining moment in Annalisa's life. When Annalisa is called to the scene of Grace's murder and realizes she was killed in a similar manner to the Lovelorn Killer, she wonders if the killer is back. Investigating will mean dredging up Annalisa's childhood memories and giving everything she has to catch a murderer.
"With each passing year, the Lovelorn Killer recedes into history and people shrug at the mention of his name. Looks like he's gone for good."
This is an excellent mystery--honestly no surprise when it's by Schaffhausen. I love her Ellery/Reed series, and I'm excited that there's a new series from her. This is a dark read and Annalisa's personal ties to the case and investigation only strengthen this book. It's wonderful reading a story with a strong female detective (and a female boss). Annalisa is a new detective, struggling with the fact that she must work with her ex-husband, Nick Carelli, the established detective on the force. But she doesn't let that, or anything, stop her. Schaffhausen is so good at writing a police procedural; she writes about the processes and force dynamics so well. You feel a part of the investigation and Annalisa's police family superbly. Same with the city of Chicago. She captures the city perfectly. As someone with Chicago ties, this book is so Chicago. I cannot wait for my parents, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, to read it.
Told from Annalisa's perspective and interspersed with excerpts from Grace's journal, GONE FOR GOOD is tense and crackling with suspense. It's a fast moving read that keeps you guessing from the very beginning, which opens with Grace's death. Yet Grace always feels like another living character in the book, and she's integral to the plot. This is truly a dark read, with a lot of death and murder, and a "bad guy" who is quite bad. I'm always impressed at how Schaffhausen can write stories that permeate with evil and tension.
Overall, I loved everything about this book. The unification of old and new cases and way the Internet sleuths added to the cases. How Annalisa's personal life intertwined with the investigation. GOOD is well-written and keeps you guessing until the very end. I'm looking forward to the next book in the series. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Minotaur Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"With each passing year, the Lovelorn Killer recedes into history and people shrug at the mention of his name. Looks like he's gone for good."
This is an excellent mystery--honestly no surprise when it's by Schaffhausen. I love her Ellery/Reed series, and I'm excited that there's a new series from her. This is a dark read and Annalisa's personal ties to the case and investigation only strengthen this book. It's wonderful reading a story with a strong female detective (and a female boss). Annalisa is a new detective, struggling with the fact that she must work with her ex-husband, Nick Carelli, the established detective on the force. But she doesn't let that, or anything, stop her. Schaffhausen is so good at writing a police procedural; she writes about the processes and force dynamics so well. You feel a part of the investigation and Annalisa's police family superbly. Same with the city of Chicago. She captures the city perfectly. As someone with Chicago ties, this book is so Chicago. I cannot wait for my parents, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, to read it.
Told from Annalisa's perspective and interspersed with excerpts from Grace's journal, GONE FOR GOOD is tense and crackling with suspense. It's a fast moving read that keeps you guessing from the very beginning, which opens with Grace's death. Yet Grace always feels like another living character in the book, and she's integral to the plot. This is truly a dark read, with a lot of death and murder, and a "bad guy" who is quite bad. I'm always impressed at how Schaffhausen can write stories that permeate with evil and tension.
Overall, I loved everything about this book. The unification of old and new cases and way the Internet sleuths added to the cases. How Annalisa's personal life intertwined with the investigation. GOOD is well-written and keeps you guessing until the very end. I'm looking forward to the next book in the series. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Minotaur Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Haiti Glass
Book
Winner of the 2015 PEN Oakland Josephine Miles Literary Award In her debut collection of verse and...
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated American Hippo (River of Teeth, #1-2) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
I actually read these volumes as separate books, so I have two separate reviews here.
River of Teeth (Part 1):
I somehow missed that this was a novella, every time I looked at it online. It wasn't until I checked it out from the library and was shocked at how small it was that I made that discovery. It was a welcome one, since I checked out seven other books that day, and finding something short was a relief!
And I AM SO GLAD I finally read this, because it's AMAZING. It opens on Winslow seducing a federal agent, and quickly moves to him gathering up a crew to drive feral hippos out of a marsh in Louisiana. I was expected a fun hippo-cowboy romp, and I got that - what I wasn't expected was strong, deadly women, a bisexual male hero, a nonbinary love interest, and hippo steeds. I don't know why hippo steeds didn't occur to me - it's not like they could wrangle hippos from atop horses! There is so much goodness packed into this little volume.
River of Teeth: short and sweet, action-packed with amazing characters and a fascinating, bizarre, but historical premise.
Taste of Marrow (Part 2):
Another quick novella, Taste of Marrow is the sequel to the bizarre alternate history novella River of Teeth. It picks up a few months after the ending of the first - people have had a chance to heal their injuries from the explosive ending of the first book, and hippos have begun to spread to previously safe waterways. The cast of this book consists of the surviving characters from the first, plus only one more semi-important character.
It's not quite as good as the first - no explosions and it's less of a rollercoaster - but there is some character development, and a deeper exploration of a few characters than we saw in the first book. I wish my library had the omnibus edition, because it includes two short stories set in the same world, and I'm very curious which aspects of the world she explored in those.
But this is a fun pair of books, very quick, easy reads, and it's just fun to say you're reading a book about hippos and cowboys!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
River of Teeth (Part 1):
I somehow missed that this was a novella, every time I looked at it online. It wasn't until I checked it out from the library and was shocked at how small it was that I made that discovery. It was a welcome one, since I checked out seven other books that day, and finding something short was a relief!
And I AM SO GLAD I finally read this, because it's AMAZING. It opens on Winslow seducing a federal agent, and quickly moves to him gathering up a crew to drive feral hippos out of a marsh in Louisiana. I was expected a fun hippo-cowboy romp, and I got that - what I wasn't expected was strong, deadly women, a bisexual male hero, a nonbinary love interest, and hippo steeds. I don't know why hippo steeds didn't occur to me - it's not like they could wrangle hippos from atop horses! There is so much goodness packed into this little volume.
River of Teeth: short and sweet, action-packed with amazing characters and a fascinating, bizarre, but historical premise.
Taste of Marrow (Part 2):
Another quick novella, Taste of Marrow is the sequel to the bizarre alternate history novella River of Teeth. It picks up a few months after the ending of the first - people have had a chance to heal their injuries from the explosive ending of the first book, and hippos have begun to spread to previously safe waterways. The cast of this book consists of the surviving characters from the first, plus only one more semi-important character.
It's not quite as good as the first - no explosions and it's less of a rollercoaster - but there is some character development, and a deeper exploration of a few characters than we saw in the first book. I wish my library had the omnibus edition, because it includes two short stories set in the same world, and I'm very curious which aspects of the world she explored in those.
But this is a fun pair of books, very quick, easy reads, and it's just fun to say you're reading a book about hippos and cowboys!
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
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.