Search
Search results
Scandikitchen: Fika and Hygge: Comforting Cakes and Bakes from Scandinavia with Love
Book
A follow-up to the successful 'The ScandiKitchen' (published September 2015), this new book from...
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Oct 15, 2017 (Updated Oct 15, 2017)
Amazing fight cinematography (4 more)
Fun gadgets
British manners vs. American straightforwardness
Doesn't take itself too seriously
ELTON JOHN
Just as fun as the first
Oh man. This movie was just as great as the original. I've heard it didn't get great reviews because it wasn't much different than the first, but why does it need to be much different? The first was a hilarious spy movie romp in an almost parody of James Bond movies, and this one was no different. With improbably back-from-the-dead characters, an amazing cameo by Elton John, and the fantastic fight choreography and cinematography of the first film, this one was a winner in my book. It was only marred by some unexpected character deaths that I am very sad about.
It took me a moment to place Eggsy's girlfriend - since she was only in the last like ten minutes of the first movie - but I was utterly delighted when I realized who she is. I was very happy to see that she wasn't just a throwaway character like so many Bond girls.
If you enjoyed the first one, you'll also enjoy this one. I'm hoping there will be a third, as there's still hope for something from this one to not be quite as it seems. And they could rectify that in a third movie.
It took me a moment to place Eggsy's girlfriend - since she was only in the last like ten minutes of the first movie - but I was utterly delighted when I realized who she is. I was very happy to see that she wasn't just a throwaway character like so many Bond girls.
If you enjoyed the first one, you'll also enjoy this one. I'm hoping there will be a third, as there's still hope for something from this one to not be quite as it seems. And they could rectify that in a third movie.
The Male Body as Advertisement: Masculinities in Hispanic Media
Book
The Male Body as Advertisement: Masculinities in Hispanic Media offers a multidisciplinary view of...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Plain Bad Heroines in Books
Dec 17, 2020
Plain Bad Heroines was one of my most anticipated reads of the year. I am a sucker for a lesbian tale. Add in a Gothic New England boarding school for girls? Sold.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
The story centers around two time periods. The first, 1902, at the Brookhants School for Girls, run by Libbie Brookhants. A book by a young writer, Mary MacLane has come out--one that's incredibly scandalous for the times. Two Brookhants girls, Flo and Clara, are obsessed with it and establish The Plain Bad Heroine Society. The two are in love, meeting in secret--until they are attacked by yellow jackets at their hiding spot, a copy of the book found with them. A few years later the school closes, but not until after more scandal and death. Now, our second period, over a hundred years later, where Merritt Emmons, a young writer, publishes a book about Flo and Clara's story. It inspires a horror film starring Harper Harper, a famous lesbian actress. Harper will be playing Flo and B-list actress Audrey Wells, Clara. Filming on-site at the abandoned Brookhants site, the three women converge. But soon, weird things start happening, and the curse of Brookhants seems back to haunt the set--and our three modern-day heroines.
This book is absolutely enthralling at times. I flew through these 619 pages, that's for sure. My notes state "very lesbian," which is, of course, a major plus for me. Believe me, we don't get a lot of books starring ourselves. And you know, where we are killed off by swarms of yellow jackets. I honestly found both storylines compelling. It's hard not to fall a bit in love with Harper Harper, the charismatic celebrity (out!) lesbian. And 1902 isn't just about Clara and Flo, but Libbie Brookhants and her life trying to run a cursed school in the early 1900s. Honestly, the pages really flew by most of the time. Though, there are certainly moments where I felt some of the story could have been cut.
And yes, the narrative style is different, though it really adds to the uniqueness of the book. It's basically told by an omnipresent narrator, talking directly to the reader. There are footnotes, often humorous ones, and the end result is something you don't often find. For the most part, I felt like Danforth pulled it off, too. I do think Libbie was a little more fully developed than Merritt, Harper, and Audrey, but that also may have been because that trio could come across as a bit spoiled at times.
Probably my two biggest issues with this book (regretfully): for a Gothic horror novel, it's not really that scary. There are a few creepy and eerie moments, especially in the beginning, but it never really builds up to that terrifying moment that you're expecting. And, somewhat related, the ending. We read and stick with our various tales for the entire time and then... poof! Everything just fizzles out. I was so bummed. The ending was such a disappointment after all I'd read and kept this from being a full-fledged 4 or 4.5-star read. I couldn't believe it after what we'd been through. It was like even the author was tired.
So, overall, this is an original and fascinating read. I'm certainly still advising you to read it (especially if you're queer or enjoy reading queer fiction). Just be prepared that the ending may not have that big scary moment you're expecting. 3.5 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Know Who You Are in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Aimee Sinclair is an actress. She's not really famous yet, but you might have heard of her. Aimee is working on her latest film when she comes home and discovers that her husband, Ben, has vanished without his wallet, phone, keys, coat, or shoes. Initially she isn't too worried as the two had a large fight the night before. But he isn't home the next morning, and Aimee's card is declined when she tries to use it. The bank tells her her account has been emptied. She immediately suspects Ben, but the bank tells her it was her. Aimee has a history of "forgetting," but she's sure she would remember this. Soon the police are at Aimee's door, and her world starts to turn upside down.
"My husband is gone"
I really enjoyed Alice Feeney's first book, SOMETIMES I LIE, and this one lived up to expectations. I have to say that Feeney has cornered the market on confusing books with unreliable narrators who bring along messed up backstories. (How's that for a mouthful?) Aimee is an interesting character--an actress with a spotty past and flitty mentions of her "forgetting"--yet you can't help but feel somewhat drawn to her. Things go south pretty quickly once Ben disappears, and we are sucked down with her. Yet Aimee is tough, and she's pretty determined to figure out what is going on.
"Acting is easy; it's being me that I find difficult"
Like Feeney's first book, this one will leave you feeling confused and disjointed as you read, much like Aimee's brain. What is going on? Can we trust her? Can we trust anyone? Complicating things is the fact that Aimee's story alternates with that of a young girl who wanders away from home and, well, let's just say that doesn't end well. These two storylines are oddly captivating, motivating you to madly flip the pages. Eventually, I found myself caring not so much about what actually happened to Ben, but just caught up in Aimee's overall story and saga.
"Sometimes it's the people who love us the most that hurt us the hardest; because they can."
Now, be warned. This is not just a befuddling tale, but a twisted one. Feeney goes dark, very dark with our story here. Oh man, but it's a really good surprise, and while I saw hints of it, I loved it, and quite enjoyed how everything came together. (Or, conversely, fell apart?) The book keeps you guessing, that's for sure.
Overall, this is a really twisted, mesmerizing thriller that keeps you engaged. I will definitely be reading anything Alice Feeney writes. 4+ stars.
"My husband is gone"
I really enjoyed Alice Feeney's first book, SOMETIMES I LIE, and this one lived up to expectations. I have to say that Feeney has cornered the market on confusing books with unreliable narrators who bring along messed up backstories. (How's that for a mouthful?) Aimee is an interesting character--an actress with a spotty past and flitty mentions of her "forgetting"--yet you can't help but feel somewhat drawn to her. Things go south pretty quickly once Ben disappears, and we are sucked down with her. Yet Aimee is tough, and she's pretty determined to figure out what is going on.
"Acting is easy; it's being me that I find difficult"
Like Feeney's first book, this one will leave you feeling confused and disjointed as you read, much like Aimee's brain. What is going on? Can we trust her? Can we trust anyone? Complicating things is the fact that Aimee's story alternates with that of a young girl who wanders away from home and, well, let's just say that doesn't end well. These two storylines are oddly captivating, motivating you to madly flip the pages. Eventually, I found myself caring not so much about what actually happened to Ben, but just caught up in Aimee's overall story and saga.
"Sometimes it's the people who love us the most that hurt us the hardest; because they can."
Now, be warned. This is not just a befuddling tale, but a twisted one. Feeney goes dark, very dark with our story here. Oh man, but it's a really good surprise, and while I saw hints of it, I loved it, and quite enjoyed how everything came together. (Or, conversely, fell apart?) The book keeps you guessing, that's for sure.
Overall, this is a really twisted, mesmerizing thriller that keeps you engaged. I will definitely be reading anything Alice Feeney writes. 4+ stars.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
John Wayne's World: Transnational Masculinity in the Fifties
Book
In a film career that spanned five decades, John Wayne became a U.S. icon of heroic individualism...
Vanishing Streets: Journeys in London
Book
Vanishing Streets reveals an American writer's twenty-year love affair with London. Beguiling and...
Fred (860 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What the hell did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so normally as soon as I watch a film, I review it. That keeps my initial thoughts fresh. But with "Mother", I just couldn't. Because I don't know what the hell I just watched. It was only at the very end, when I realized Javier Bardem was God, that I knew I had to think back & figure out what this mess was about. And so, I slept on it. And here's the way I see it.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
And on That Bombshell: Inside the Madness and Genius of Top Gear
Book
I was Top Gear's script editor for 13 years and all 22 series. I basically used to check spelling...