Search
The New Teen Titans: The Judas Contract
9.0
Rate It
Book
They were Earth's teenage defenders - unbeatable and unstoppable. Riding high, they took an eighth...
The Giver of Stars
8.7
Rate It
Book
England, late 1930s, and Alice Wright — restless, stifled — makes an impulsive decision to marry...
The Glitch
5.0
Rate It
Book
Shelley Stone might be a little overwhelmed. She runs the company Conch, the manufacturer of a small...
When Rose Wakes
3.0
Rate It
Book
Her terrifying dreams are nothing compared to the all-too-real nightmare that awaits. . . .Ever...
Brazen and the Beast
Book
The Lady’s Plan When Lady Henrietta Sedley declares her twenty-ninth year her own, she has...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
This is the Trek movie that I’ve probably seen least often. It’s one that is very “planet-bound” ones (another of those is still to come in the series), and as such it has never grabbed my interest in the same way as many of the others. Having watched it again, it’s actually better than I remember it. The rejuvenating capabilities of the planet on Geordi LeForge’s eyes leads to a genuinely moving sunset scene. And love is in the air too. Firstly, between Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the ‘older woman’ Anij (Donna Murphy): very tastefully and nicely done. And secondly, the relationship is also rekindled between Troi (Marina Sirtis) and Riker (Jonathan Frakes), though you have to wonder if Frakes pulled ‘director’s privilege’ in getting the naked bath scene with Sirtis – lucky dog!
That being said, and despite the heavyweight involvement of F. Murray Abraham and Anthony Zerbe. the “First Contact” magic is rather missing here. There’s a sense of desperation when a previously unknown ‘Captain’s Yacht’ hoves into view (as if!) and when the Enterprise’s “manual steering column” (a PS/2 joystick!) pops up!
So, will the TNG era end with a bang or a whimper?
That being said, and despite the heavyweight involvement of F. Murray Abraham and Anthony Zerbe. the “First Contact” magic is rather missing here. There’s a sense of desperation when a previously unknown ‘Captain’s Yacht’ hoves into view (as if!) and when the Enterprise’s “manual steering column” (a PS/2 joystick!) pops up!
So, will the TNG era end with a bang or a whimper?
ClareR (5726 KP) rated Tapestry of Treason in Books
Aug 26, 2019
Intrigue in Henry Vs Court.
A Tapestry of Treason follows the life and intrigues of Constance of York, Lady Despenser from 1399 through to the early 1400s. And she was an absolutely fascinating woman. Hers was a totally dysfunctional family - but you do wonder how anyone could have a ‘normal’ family when mothers gave birth, handed their baby over to a wet nurse and went back to the Royal Court as soon as they were Churched. And the fathers didn’t seem to be there either. But this did make for some pretty interesting family dynamics. I’m surprised that there weren’t more illegitimate children, what with all the arranged, loveless marriages that seemed to be going on (although there were probably loads, and plenty of loving marriages too!).
Anyway, Constance was involved with her family in two plots against Henry V. York had been big supporters and cousins of Richard II, and were luckily also relatives of Henry V. So when Henry ousted Richard and imprisoned him, the Yorks were relatively safe. That was until they tried to reinstate Richard. Constance was fully a part of this plot: she’s portrayed as a strong-minded, confident woman who made her own mind up, and was loyal to her family. I do like female characters like this, and I like that Anne O’Brien didn’t make her into a caricature of a strident, bossy woman, as often happens in these cases.
I thought that the whole book was sensitively done. Henry isn’t made out to be a villain, in fact he’s always fair, and in some instances he may well have been thought of as too soft towards his York cousins (they were certainly dangerous to know).
I loved this book, actually. My mum has been pointing out Anne O’Brien books to me for ages, but I’ve avoided them because I knew I’d want to read everything once I started. Ah well, looks like I’ve started then (and always listen to your mum!).
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for choosing yet another fabulous book, and to Anne O’Brien for reading along with the serialisation and answering questions. I had the best time!
Anyway, Constance was involved with her family in two plots against Henry V. York had been big supporters and cousins of Richard II, and were luckily also relatives of Henry V. So when Henry ousted Richard and imprisoned him, the Yorks were relatively safe. That was until they tried to reinstate Richard. Constance was fully a part of this plot: she’s portrayed as a strong-minded, confident woman who made her own mind up, and was loyal to her family. I do like female characters like this, and I like that Anne O’Brien didn’t make her into a caricature of a strident, bossy woman, as often happens in these cases.
I thought that the whole book was sensitively done. Henry isn’t made out to be a villain, in fact he’s always fair, and in some instances he may well have been thought of as too soft towards his York cousins (they were certainly dangerous to know).
I loved this book, actually. My mum has been pointing out Anne O’Brien books to me for ages, but I’ve avoided them because I knew I’d want to read everything once I started. Ah well, looks like I’ve started then (and always listen to your mum!).
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for choosing yet another fabulous book, and to Anne O’Brien for reading along with the serialisation and answering questions. I had the best time!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Booksnthreads (19 KP) rated Behind the Beautiful Forevers in Books
Jun 5, 2018
I must say, I’m disappointed. I discovered this book from a list of “books every woman MUST read” sort of thing, and I still don’t understand why this book was on that particular list. There’s nothing about the story that appeals to or directly speaks to being a woman. BUT, that’s not the only reason why I didn’t particularly like this book.
Maybe if you chose to read the book because you wanted a glimpse into the sordid lives of slum dwellers in Mumbai, you might actually appreciate the book. The story isn’t really about an individual character, or even about the characters at all, but about the political and social constructs that serve to keep people in poverty, about the corruption in the government that, while professing to advance the cause of helping these people, only serves to perpetuate injustice. If that’s what you are reading it for, to see an absolutely horrific depiction of Indian social services, then by all means, read on. If you prefer to read something that uses character development and plot to more subtly put forward ideas and truths, look elsewhere.
The other thing to keep in mind as you read this novel is that it is written by an American reporter. While I do not question Boo’s qualifications and knowledge of the topic, it’s good to remember that she is an outsider with an agenda. However positive her agenda may be, and however knowledgeable about the Indian slums and the plight of the poor she may be, I couldn’t help but wonder as I read how the narrative might have been influenced by her Western lens and how it might have been different if written by an Indian author.
Maybe if you chose to read the book because you wanted a glimpse into the sordid lives of slum dwellers in Mumbai, you might actually appreciate the book. The story isn’t really about an individual character, or even about the characters at all, but about the political and social constructs that serve to keep people in poverty, about the corruption in the government that, while professing to advance the cause of helping these people, only serves to perpetuate injustice. If that’s what you are reading it for, to see an absolutely horrific depiction of Indian social services, then by all means, read on. If you prefer to read something that uses character development and plot to more subtly put forward ideas and truths, look elsewhere.
The other thing to keep in mind as you read this novel is that it is written by an American reporter. While I do not question Boo’s qualifications and knowledge of the topic, it’s good to remember that she is an outsider with an agenda. However positive her agenda may be, and however knowledgeable about the Indian slums and the plight of the poor she may be, I couldn’t help but wonder as I read how the narrative might have been influenced by her Western lens and how it might have been different if written by an Indian author.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sylvia Scarlett (1935) in Movies
Jan 4, 2019
Surprised it Wasn't Better
I was hoping my first review of 2019 would be for a quality film, but you can’t win ‘em all. Sylvia Scarlett is awful and that is putting it nicely. The plot: a young woman pretends to be a boy to travel with her con artist father and trick people into giving them money.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.