Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Last Summer in Books
Jul 24, 2019
I first heard about Last Summer by Kerry Lonsdale when I was browsing the giveaway section of Goodreads. I'm a stickler for books that deal with memory loss and trying to regain memories, so Last Summer definitely caught my eye. I was thrilled when I received an email from Goodreads saying I had won the eBook for Last Summer. After reading this novel, I'm glad I didn't pay for it. While it wasn't a great read, it was just lackluster.
Ella , a journalist, is in the hospital after a car accident that killed her unborn child. However, after being there for a few days, she suddenly loses her memory about being being pregnant and what happened right before she became pregnant and during her pregnancy. Desperate to remember her child, she does whatever she can to remember. When she is assigned to get an exclusive story about Nathan, a former celebrity whose son has just died, he lets her know that he knows some of things she forgot. However, some memories are best left forgotten.
The plot sounded for Last Summer like it would be promising. I felt like this book would be more about the mystery of Ella's memories. However, it seemed more like a romance novel than anything else which was a disappointment for me. It was more about Ella loving Nathan (not a spoiler, don't worry) but also loving her husband and her feeling guilty about it. At times, the plot seemed a bit muddled as well as predictable. There are a couple of plot twists I didn't see coming. The dialogue and writing seemed realistic as did the plot, so there's that. One thing that did bother me was how much sex was mentioned in the book. There were times I felt as if sex was mentioned just for the sake of mentioning it. I felt like sometimes it would have been implied or not mentioned at all.
The characters were just so so as well. I wanted to like them more, but I just had trouble. I don't think they were written poorly for the most part. I just couldn't feel a connection. There was something I didn't really like about Damien, Ella's husband, starting from the beginning of the book. He started off as being a bit mean and a bit smarmy at times. I kept wanting Ella to just run away from him because I did not like the guy! Ella sometimes felt a little too one dimensional for my liking. I felt like she was missing some depth to her, and there were many times she felt shallow. I did like Nathan, and I felt really bad for him. The hand he was given was a bad one. He was the only one character that felt the most sincere. I just wanted to hug him so many times.
The pacing for Last Summer was slow in some places, but it wasn't too bad. It did hold my attention throughout, and I found myself wanting to read more each time I had a spare minute. The story does flow well.
Trigger warnings for Last Summer include child loss, profanity, drinking, marital cheating, sex (although only slightly graphic), and lying.
All in all, Last Summer is a just an okay read. There's nothing that special about it where I would actually remember reading it a few months down the line. Saying that, I would recommend Last Summer by Kerry Lonsdale simply because I feel like it would make a good book to read while on vacation.
Ella , a journalist, is in the hospital after a car accident that killed her unborn child. However, after being there for a few days, she suddenly loses her memory about being being pregnant and what happened right before she became pregnant and during her pregnancy. Desperate to remember her child, she does whatever she can to remember. When she is assigned to get an exclusive story about Nathan, a former celebrity whose son has just died, he lets her know that he knows some of things she forgot. However, some memories are best left forgotten.
The plot sounded for Last Summer like it would be promising. I felt like this book would be more about the mystery of Ella's memories. However, it seemed more like a romance novel than anything else which was a disappointment for me. It was more about Ella loving Nathan (not a spoiler, don't worry) but also loving her husband and her feeling guilty about it. At times, the plot seemed a bit muddled as well as predictable. There are a couple of plot twists I didn't see coming. The dialogue and writing seemed realistic as did the plot, so there's that. One thing that did bother me was how much sex was mentioned in the book. There were times I felt as if sex was mentioned just for the sake of mentioning it. I felt like sometimes it would have been implied or not mentioned at all.
The characters were just so so as well. I wanted to like them more, but I just had trouble. I don't think they were written poorly for the most part. I just couldn't feel a connection. There was something I didn't really like about Damien, Ella's husband, starting from the beginning of the book. He started off as being a bit mean and a bit smarmy at times. I kept wanting Ella to just run away from him because I did not like the guy! Ella sometimes felt a little too one dimensional for my liking. I felt like she was missing some depth to her, and there were many times she felt shallow. I did like Nathan, and I felt really bad for him. The hand he was given was a bad one. He was the only one character that felt the most sincere. I just wanted to hug him so many times.
The pacing for Last Summer was slow in some places, but it wasn't too bad. It did hold my attention throughout, and I found myself wanting to read more each time I had a spare minute. The story does flow well.
Trigger warnings for Last Summer include child loss, profanity, drinking, marital cheating, sex (although only slightly graphic), and lying.
All in all, Last Summer is a just an okay read. There's nothing that special about it where I would actually remember reading it a few months down the line. Saying that, I would recommend Last Summer by Kerry Lonsdale simply because I feel like it would make a good book to read while on vacation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Interview (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Thanks to the negative attention that “The Interview” received, it will be viewed by many more people than it would have without the controversy. The film, which was almost never released due to a cyberattack on Sony, is now the most widely accessible of this season.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Muppets (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
As a child, I have fond memories of watching The Muppet Show and enjoying the mix of comedy, music, and dance with my family and recapping the show with my friends the following day. Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, and the whole gang were my childhood icons and provided countless hours of entertainment with their brilliant and inspired variety show as well as the three movies that followed. It is hard to believe that 1989 was the last time the gang graced the big screen with “The Muppets in Space”. Thankfully they are back in a big way to delight fans, old and new, this holiday season.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Immortal (2019) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
You can't stop what's coming.
l'immortale is a good companion piece to possibly the greatest TV show of all time gomorra & while it does shed a bit more light on what sort of the life one of its best characters had at a younger age and where he is now i can't help but feel it's tainted one of the best twists the show has to offer overall. (WARNING: spoilers for gomorrah ahead but if your watching this anyway before you have seen the show I'd strongly advise not to). After surviving the incident on the boat at the end of season 3 Ciro begins a new life in Latvia caught working between Russian clans in Latvia. Long gone now are the days of him being a top dog & while he still has a certain celebrity status among people here he is undoubtedly someone else's bitch. He's a man that has absolutely nothing left to loose now & it's finally stating to take a toll on him mentally and physically. Marco D'Amore again is fantastic here & this time plays a more subjude Ciro. As a character he lacks confidence now & walks around with less pride & cockynes, he's not as sure of himself & personality wise he's alot quieter & socially distantanced. He also spends a lot of time thinking in silence, just remenising & taking in the scenery almost like life itself bores him now & he is just waiting for the day to come where someone puts him down. Marco D'Amore plays this character perfectly as always & as a viewer its great to see the mighty Ciro from a different light & helps us to feel his pain connecting with him in an alternative way to which we usually do. Marco D'Amore is also the director this time too & as a first film it's a really great effort but also at the same time he seems to really struggle finding an identity of his own & here lies my biggest problem with the movie. Far to often it feels like he's trying to just replicate Gomorra instead of taking the regins & putting his own spin on things (a bit like what ryan gosling did with the lost river trying to initiate nwr). Don't get me wrong is very similar to Gommora but it's not as griping, powerful, raw, gritty, impactful & full of tension like the show is & thus most of the scenes that use the same format either feel a bit hollow or off in some way. I did really enjoy the flash back scenes & seeing Ciro's upbringing & other tragidies that happen back then certainly do a great job of explaining why he's generally such a cold hearted desensitised person. What I can't understand is the main plot & that's mainly because the characters life had a fitting conclusion at the end of Gomorra season 3 so bringing him back now randomly for a movie just makes a very realistically grounded show seem a bit far fetched because while he maybe nicknamed the immortal after all he's still only human. All in all if it had just been a prequel film I think I'd of enjoyed it a lot more however if your a fan of the show & it's characters I would recommend seeing this as it definitely fills the time while waiting for season 5 & it absolutely proves Marco D'Amore shows promise as a director too.
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated David Brent: Life on the Road (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A squirm-athon from beginning to end.
“Life on the Road” is a mockumentary sequel to the classic British version of the TV comedy “The Office” (obviously later remade for the US market and featuring Steve Carell). Ricky Gervais played the ego-centric David Brent, a monster of a character who exercised what little control he had in his managerial role at a Slough paper company.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Menu (2022) in Movies
Nov 24, 2022
Puts the DARK in Dark Comedy
If a Film Comedy is Milk Chocolate and a Dark Comedy is Dark Chocolate, then the new film THE MENU (Directed by Mark Mylod - Game of Thrones) is the SPECIAL INTENSE (90%) Dark Chocolate of films.
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.