Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Harriet Tubman was among one of the most significant abolitionists in United States history. This film tells the story of her life where she was born in Maryland as a plantation slave. Named Araminta at “Minty” Ross, she transforms throughout her journey, becoming Harriet Tubman as well as transforming into Moses, the appropriate name for the person who leads.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rush (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today we bring you the latest from dircetor Ron Howard. A movie about what is considered to be one of the greatest rivalries in sports history and to this day, the greatest rivalry in the history of Formula 1 racing … the biographical action film RUSH. Released in the United States on September 20th RUSH tells the story behind the 1976 Formula 1 racing season and the intense rivalry between britsh racing champion James Hunt and austrain racing champion Niki Lauda. Staring Chis Hemsworth (Thor, Red Dawn) as Hunt and Daniel Bruhl (Inglourious Bastards, The Bourne Ultimatum) as Lauda, RUSH follows the two racing legends from their first confrontation at a Formula 3 race at England’s Crystal Palace circuit in 1970 to their accention to Formula 1 racing, to Lauda’s near-fatal carsh at the German Grand Prix and finally to the final race of the season, the Japanese Grand Prix.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
MP3 Quran- Abdurrehman Al Sudais
Education and Utilities
App
Quran Audio-Al Sudais is the ultimate Quran application for iPhone/Ipad users with Quran recitations...
Webster's College Dictionary and Thesaurus
Reference and Education
App
Webster's New World ® College Dictionary and Roget's A-Z Thesaurus is a software bundle of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Minari (2020) in Movies
Apr 23, 2021
Ensemble cast acting (2 more)
Music and Cinematography
Engrossing story
A Korean Hillbilly Elegy, done right
In "Minari", a struggling Korean immigrant family - the Yi's led by Jacob (Steven Yeun) and Monica (Yeri Han) - leave California for Arkansas farmland to seek a better life. While employed sexing chicks at a factory, Jacob dreams of farming the land on which they live to improve their lives. But will his obsession for this dream stand between him and his family?
The tale is told through the eyes of young David (Alan S. Kim), who is struggling with a hole in the heart and doubts about his mortality. The arrival of Monica's mother (Yuh-Jung Youn) is resented by David, but the woman is wise (as well as foul mouthed) and perhaps the pair will eventually learn to respect one another?
Positives:
- Gloriously bucolic cinematography (by Lachlan Milne) frames an engrossing story of an immigrant family striving for the American dream. The fact that it is semi-biographical for the writer/director Lee Isaac Chung (also Oscar nominated for both) makes it all the more fascinating.
- All of the leading cast work fabulously as an ensemble. Steven Yeun and Yuh-Jung Youn have all the Oscar nomination glory (with Youn as the Grandmother odds-on to win the Supporting Actress award on Sunday). But Yeri Han is also great and the film wouldn't work unless the two child actors (Alan Kim and Noel Cho) delivered, which they do in spades.
- The music, by Emile Mosseri, is strikingly good and - deservedly - also Oscar nominated.
Negatives:
- The ending. Now, I'm all for leaving things in a thoughtful way, allowing the viewer to ponder on things. But this ending was a little too obscure for me. You need to understand (with thanks to this article) that the vegetable Minari purifies (water), grows in unfavourable soils and only really thrives in its second season. Now, forgive me for not being 'up' on my Korean plant botany, but this was too much of a leap for me. For the uninitiated (I assume 95% of the audience) the ending will feel abrupt and unsatisfying.
Summary Thoughts on "Minari":
Having watched "Hillbilly Elegy" and "Minari" on consecutive nights, I was struck by the unexpected parallels between the films (over and above the Yi's calling themselves "Hillbillies"). Both feature a dysfunctional family (though less so here). And both also feature a lead character, from an impoverished background, trying to better themselves and follow the 'American dream'. And front and centre is the growing relationship between a young boy and their grandmother.
But there the similarities end. For I just loved the simplicity of the story-telling in "Minari". No fancy flashbacks and disjointed timeline here. And a sense that you were really in on the journey of both Jacob and his farm and of the relationship between David and his Grandma.
This was heading at one point for a 10 star rating for me. But - for me anyway - the obscurity of the ending left me with a "WTF" feeling. So I've tempered my rating. Still a great film though, and recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the post on One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
The tale is told through the eyes of young David (Alan S. Kim), who is struggling with a hole in the heart and doubts about his mortality. The arrival of Monica's mother (Yuh-Jung Youn) is resented by David, but the woman is wise (as well as foul mouthed) and perhaps the pair will eventually learn to respect one another?
Positives:
- Gloriously bucolic cinematography (by Lachlan Milne) frames an engrossing story of an immigrant family striving for the American dream. The fact that it is semi-biographical for the writer/director Lee Isaac Chung (also Oscar nominated for both) makes it all the more fascinating.
- All of the leading cast work fabulously as an ensemble. Steven Yeun and Yuh-Jung Youn have all the Oscar nomination glory (with Youn as the Grandmother odds-on to win the Supporting Actress award on Sunday). But Yeri Han is also great and the film wouldn't work unless the two child actors (Alan Kim and Noel Cho) delivered, which they do in spades.
- The music, by Emile Mosseri, is strikingly good and - deservedly - also Oscar nominated.
Negatives:
- The ending. Now, I'm all for leaving things in a thoughtful way, allowing the viewer to ponder on things. But this ending was a little too obscure for me. You need to understand (with thanks to this article) that the vegetable Minari purifies (water), grows in unfavourable soils and only really thrives in its second season. Now, forgive me for not being 'up' on my Korean plant botany, but this was too much of a leap for me. For the uninitiated (I assume 95% of the audience) the ending will feel abrupt and unsatisfying.
Summary Thoughts on "Minari":
Having watched "Hillbilly Elegy" and "Minari" on consecutive nights, I was struck by the unexpected parallels between the films (over and above the Yi's calling themselves "Hillbillies"). Both feature a dysfunctional family (though less so here). And both also feature a lead character, from an impoverished background, trying to better themselves and follow the 'American dream'. And front and centre is the growing relationship between a young boy and their grandmother.
But there the similarities end. For I just loved the simplicity of the story-telling in "Minari". No fancy flashbacks and disjointed timeline here. And a sense that you were really in on the journey of both Jacob and his farm and of the relationship between David and his Grandma.
This was heading at one point for a 10 star rating for me. But - for me anyway - the obscurity of the ending left me with a "WTF" feeling. So I've tempered my rating. Still a great film though, and recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the post on One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
Factually Accurate
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner Siân Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Women’s Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these women’s careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, Siân Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the women’s lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> – pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Electric Slide (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today’s choice for your consideration is the 2014 film ‘Electric Slide’. A biographical crime film based on the life of antique/furniture salesman turned bank robber Eddie Dodson.
Starring Jim Sturgess, Isabel Lucas, Chloe Sevigny, Patricia Arquette, and Christopher Lambert, ‘Electric Slide’ opens in 1983 Los Angeles. Disco is nearly dead and Rock-n-Roll is putting the final nails in its coffin. By day, Eddie Dodson (Jim Sturgess) is a hip antique furniture salesman (there’s a contradiction in terms) catering to the rich and famous while in engaging in some petty thievering from his customers on the side. By night, he moves with the drug-fueled parties from one mansion to the next. A chance encounter at one of these parties introduces him to the beautiful and aloof Pauline (Isabel Lucas). Eddie and Pauline are immediately smitten with one another as though destined by fate. At about the same time, Eddie’s carefree lifestyle is coming back to haunt him as loan sharks finally catch up to him and his former benefactor Roy Fortune (Christopher Lambert) comes calling demanding the return of his money. With no other way to repay his debt, Eddie resorts to robbing banks. With Pauline in tow, Eddie uses his charm to talk the tellers at over 60 banks in the L.A. Area into handing over their cash. However, instead of paying off his debts Eddie and Pauline simply continue their life of excess with the police and the loan sharks in hot pursuit.
This film did an excellent job of depicting the ‘L.A. Lifestyle’ of the early 1980s that didn’t involve celebrities, but the folks who you would imagine would be latching on to those said celebrities.
The groupies if you will. The main character Eddie Dodson seems like he was a born con artist … a greasy slime ball who will take you for every thing you have if you let him. He is a bizarrely likable character though and his devotion to Pauline makes the viewer all the more want him to get away with just about any scheme he tries to pull. This is the first time I’ve seen Isabel Lucas in film since ‘Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen’ or the ‘Red Dawn’ remake and I must say her performance as Pauline was brilliant. To quote another reviewer who screened this film I found myself asking ‘Who is that girl?’ From her first appearance on screen, it’s like you’re immediately drawn to her quiet/mysterious presence. It was also awesome to see Christopher Lambert in a movie once again. Although he’s portrayed a villain previously, I had personally never seen anything where he was the villain. His appearance in this film although brief had me convinced. In my opinion he should pursue more roles as the villain if they present themselves.
One of the movie’s aspects that bugged me though was the soundtrack. The only way I could describe it would be ‘hipsters trying to sound retro’ and they didn’t succeed. The music didn’t sound like it belonged in the timeframe which the movie took place in. There were also far too many clips and scenes where they kicked in the slow motion or decided to have the camera pan or zoom out in some attempt to capture more of the surroundings. They could’ve used this wasted time to include more dialogue and interaction between the main characters in my opinion. Besides the A-List actors they managed to enlist for this film the only thing that saved it in the end was the knowledge that the film was based on a true story. It kinda of fizzled about halfway though and then kicked back in 3/4s of the way through. The film is worth watching visually but the thing that killed it was that it could’ve used more dialogue. I’d give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. It’s worth watching once or twice. Nothing to write home about though.
Starring Jim Sturgess, Isabel Lucas, Chloe Sevigny, Patricia Arquette, and Christopher Lambert, ‘Electric Slide’ opens in 1983 Los Angeles. Disco is nearly dead and Rock-n-Roll is putting the final nails in its coffin. By day, Eddie Dodson (Jim Sturgess) is a hip antique furniture salesman (there’s a contradiction in terms) catering to the rich and famous while in engaging in some petty thievering from his customers on the side. By night, he moves with the drug-fueled parties from one mansion to the next. A chance encounter at one of these parties introduces him to the beautiful and aloof Pauline (Isabel Lucas). Eddie and Pauline are immediately smitten with one another as though destined by fate. At about the same time, Eddie’s carefree lifestyle is coming back to haunt him as loan sharks finally catch up to him and his former benefactor Roy Fortune (Christopher Lambert) comes calling demanding the return of his money. With no other way to repay his debt, Eddie resorts to robbing banks. With Pauline in tow, Eddie uses his charm to talk the tellers at over 60 banks in the L.A. Area into handing over their cash. However, instead of paying off his debts Eddie and Pauline simply continue their life of excess with the police and the loan sharks in hot pursuit.
This film did an excellent job of depicting the ‘L.A. Lifestyle’ of the early 1980s that didn’t involve celebrities, but the folks who you would imagine would be latching on to those said celebrities.
The groupies if you will. The main character Eddie Dodson seems like he was a born con artist … a greasy slime ball who will take you for every thing you have if you let him. He is a bizarrely likable character though and his devotion to Pauline makes the viewer all the more want him to get away with just about any scheme he tries to pull. This is the first time I’ve seen Isabel Lucas in film since ‘Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen’ or the ‘Red Dawn’ remake and I must say her performance as Pauline was brilliant. To quote another reviewer who screened this film I found myself asking ‘Who is that girl?’ From her first appearance on screen, it’s like you’re immediately drawn to her quiet/mysterious presence. It was also awesome to see Christopher Lambert in a movie once again. Although he’s portrayed a villain previously, I had personally never seen anything where he was the villain. His appearance in this film although brief had me convinced. In my opinion he should pursue more roles as the villain if they present themselves.
One of the movie’s aspects that bugged me though was the soundtrack. The only way I could describe it would be ‘hipsters trying to sound retro’ and they didn’t succeed. The music didn’t sound like it belonged in the timeframe which the movie took place in. There were also far too many clips and scenes where they kicked in the slow motion or decided to have the camera pan or zoom out in some attempt to capture more of the surroundings. They could’ve used this wasted time to include more dialogue and interaction between the main characters in my opinion. Besides the A-List actors they managed to enlist for this film the only thing that saved it in the end was the knowledge that the film was based on a true story. It kinda of fizzled about halfway though and then kicked back in 3/4s of the way through. The film is worth watching visually but the thing that killed it was that it could’ve used more dialogue. I’d give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. It’s worth watching once or twice. Nothing to write home about though.