Search
Search results
myZindagi – Find & Consult Doctor Online
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
myZindagi reduces the distance between patients and healthcare professionals. Connecting doctors &...
Data Mining for Business Analytics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications with JMP Pro
Galit Shmueli, Nitin R. Patel, Peter C. Bruce and Mia L. Stephens
Book
Data Mining for Business Analytics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications with JMP Pro(R) presents...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Grace Year in Books
Sep 26, 2019
For Tierney and the other girls in Garner County, their sixteenth year is when they are banished from the county. Their grace year. In the county, women have magic, and the girls are sent away to rid themselves of it. While away, they could supposedly be nabbed by poachers any chance they get, who sell their parts on the black market. Many don't return home, or if they do, they are missing body parts (ugh, I know). Tierney has always wanted a different life. Not an arranged marriage, nor a world where women are inferior to men. But she realizes as the grace year nears, her fellow girls may pose the greatest threat of all.
"No one speaks of the grace year. It's forbidden."
I really liked the premise of this book. I'm sure you've heard all the comparisons by now. This is "The Handmaid's Tale" plus "Lord of the Flies." Throw a little "Hunger Games" in. Sold, right? The idea that society sends girls away at sixteen to rid themselves of their "magic"--it sounds really cool. A society that fears women and takes away their status, yet relies on their parts (literally) as medicine. Yes. So much of this book is really amazing. I highlighted so many powerful lines.
But, I don't know, guys... I am still wrapping my brain around this one. I just couldn't get into it. I never wanted to pick it up--I should have cared deeply for Trinity, and I did. Sometimes. Part of the reason I had problems going back to the book was because it stressed me out. These girls were mean. Sometimes I was confused. We were thrown into the story without any backstory--what time period, why they think women have magic, why medicine consists of body parts, who are the poachers, what are the outskirts, why is the original language flowers, etc. I guess that adds to the mystique, but I don't like reading when I can't figure anything out.
"But not all of us will make it home... not in one piece."
It seemed like this was going to be a power anthem. The girls rise against society. Or maybe just Trinity escapes and the outskirts rise against society. Someone should be revolting, right? And yes, Trinity definitely had her awesome moments. But it also seemed like there were lots of moments that involved rescue--by men. There's also a really convenient insta-romance in here. Everything just seemed a little jumbled and crazy for my taste. There's some amazing, underlining worthy lines and then some that just make you cringe a bit.
So, overall, I'm not totally sold, though there's potential here. I rate based on my enjoyment, so this is a 3-star read for me. But it's getting lots of rave reviews from others, so don't let my review necessarily hold you back.
"No one speaks of the grace year. It's forbidden."
I really liked the premise of this book. I'm sure you've heard all the comparisons by now. This is "The Handmaid's Tale" plus "Lord of the Flies." Throw a little "Hunger Games" in. Sold, right? The idea that society sends girls away at sixteen to rid themselves of their "magic"--it sounds really cool. A society that fears women and takes away their status, yet relies on their parts (literally) as medicine. Yes. So much of this book is really amazing. I highlighted so many powerful lines.
But, I don't know, guys... I am still wrapping my brain around this one. I just couldn't get into it. I never wanted to pick it up--I should have cared deeply for Trinity, and I did. Sometimes. Part of the reason I had problems going back to the book was because it stressed me out. These girls were mean. Sometimes I was confused. We were thrown into the story without any backstory--what time period, why they think women have magic, why medicine consists of body parts, who are the poachers, what are the outskirts, why is the original language flowers, etc. I guess that adds to the mystique, but I don't like reading when I can't figure anything out.
"But not all of us will make it home... not in one piece."
It seemed like this was going to be a power anthem. The girls rise against society. Or maybe just Trinity escapes and the outskirts rise against society. Someone should be revolting, right? And yes, Trinity definitely had her awesome moments. But it also seemed like there were lots of moments that involved rescue--by men. There's also a really convenient insta-romance in here. Everything just seemed a little jumbled and crazy for my taste. There's some amazing, underlining worthy lines and then some that just make you cringe a bit.
So, overall, I'm not totally sold, though there's potential here. I rate based on my enjoyment, so this is a 3-star read for me. But it's getting lots of rave reviews from others, so don't let my review necessarily hold you back.
How to Manage: The Definitive Guide to Effective Management
Book
How to Manage has been officially shortlisted in the 'practical manager' category for the 2017...
Polymer Glasses
Book
"the present book will be of great value for both newcomers to the field and mature active...
The Emergence of Routines: Entrepreneurship, Organization, and Business History
Daniel M. G. Raff and Philip Scranton
Book
This book is a collection of essays about the emergence of routines and, more generally, about...
Public Policies for Food Sovereignty: Social Movements and the State
Annette Aurelie Desmarais, Priscilla Claeys and Amy Trauger
Book
An increasing number of rural and urban-based movements are realizing some political traction in...
The Mixer: The Story of Premier League Tactics, from Route One to False Nines
Book
An absolutely essential book for every modern football fan, about the development of Premier League...
sports
Die große Wörterfabrik
Book and Games
App
NEW: Now for iPad AND iPhone - You can now install this app on both your iPad and on your iPhone. ...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?