Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Space Between Us (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Gardner Elliot (Asa Butterfield) is a 16 year old boy who has never set foot on Earth. His mother found out she was pregnant on while on a mission to live on Mars for four years. Just after arriving on the red planet his mother gave birth and then sadly passed away. Since his birth was an unplanned surprise to his mother, NASA and Genesis, the private company that made the trip to Mars possible, they all decide to keep his existence a classified secret. So for the next 16 years he was raised on Mars by a revolving crew of a dozen or so scientist who stayed on the space station called East Texas. Gardner relishes the chance to be known and to travel to Earth. On Mars all he has is his self-proclaimed best friend is an artificial intelligent robot named Centaur (voiced by Peter Chelsom) and a couple of people who he can call friends. One is Kendra (Carla Gugino), a mother figure who watches over and tries to protect him. The other is Tulsa (Britt Robertson), a teenage school girl from Earth, who he chats online with every chance he gets and desperately wants to meet.
Gardner finds a box of his mother’s things in a storage room and a photo of who he believes to be his father. His urge to go to Earth and meet his father and Tulsa is to the point he will do almost anything. Kendra seeing the pain that Gardner is in she decides to reach out to Genesis Director Chen (BD Wong) and founder Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) and requests they allow him to come to Earth. Shepherd is against it. Pointing out that, due to the reduced gravity of Mars, Gardner’s bones will be weaker and more brittle and his heart will be enlarged. Almost assuredly making living on Earth impossible. Determined to make it to Gardner goes through painful operations to strengthen his bones and intense training to improve his muscles. After 16 years he is finally allowed to travel to Earth. Only to be quarantined and battered with tests upon arrival. Undeterred, he breaks out of the facility and heads out to find Tulsa. He finds her and convinces her to help him find his father. So they head out cross country to find his family and seem to be finding love along the way. But Kendra and Shepherd are hot on their heels. They rush to track Gardner down before his health deteriorates and is unable to survive in Earth’s environment.
The Sci-Fi story is a heartwarming one in The Space Between Us. It is a futuristic love story of two teens who are worlds apart, literally in this instance, but both find the one person in the universe who is meant for them. Butterfield does a good job of playing Gardner and showing how someone removed from this world can be awkward and out of place but also be amazingly honest and forthright. Robertson performance is okay as the tough product of a foster system teen that has a rough exterior but longs for a family. The love story and interaction between these two characters is definitely the bright spot. The rest of the cast is good and the overall story had some original concepts, such as the first human born on Mars. But there are times that are a little cheesy for my personal taste. Also the ending in my opinion was predictable and a forgone conclusion. How the film was presented visually was hit and miss for me. There would be beautiful shots of mountain passes, the ocean or the desert that really captured the beauty of Earth as if they were being seen for the first time. Then there were times when the shot was blurry and you could tell the people, vehicles or aircraft was out of place. The shots of space were very much the same some good some bad.
Overall the movie was good but not really something I would want to go back and see again. It definitely had the feel of a movie you could take the whole family to, very wholesome. I wish it was more constant visually.
Gardner finds a box of his mother’s things in a storage room and a photo of who he believes to be his father. His urge to go to Earth and meet his father and Tulsa is to the point he will do almost anything. Kendra seeing the pain that Gardner is in she decides to reach out to Genesis Director Chen (BD Wong) and founder Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) and requests they allow him to come to Earth. Shepherd is against it. Pointing out that, due to the reduced gravity of Mars, Gardner’s bones will be weaker and more brittle and his heart will be enlarged. Almost assuredly making living on Earth impossible. Determined to make it to Gardner goes through painful operations to strengthen his bones and intense training to improve his muscles. After 16 years he is finally allowed to travel to Earth. Only to be quarantined and battered with tests upon arrival. Undeterred, he breaks out of the facility and heads out to find Tulsa. He finds her and convinces her to help him find his father. So they head out cross country to find his family and seem to be finding love along the way. But Kendra and Shepherd are hot on their heels. They rush to track Gardner down before his health deteriorates and is unable to survive in Earth’s environment.
The Sci-Fi story is a heartwarming one in The Space Between Us. It is a futuristic love story of two teens who are worlds apart, literally in this instance, but both find the one person in the universe who is meant for them. Butterfield does a good job of playing Gardner and showing how someone removed from this world can be awkward and out of place but also be amazingly honest and forthright. Robertson performance is okay as the tough product of a foster system teen that has a rough exterior but longs for a family. The love story and interaction between these two characters is definitely the bright spot. The rest of the cast is good and the overall story had some original concepts, such as the first human born on Mars. But there are times that are a little cheesy for my personal taste. Also the ending in my opinion was predictable and a forgone conclusion. How the film was presented visually was hit and miss for me. There would be beautiful shots of mountain passes, the ocean or the desert that really captured the beauty of Earth as if they were being seen for the first time. Then there were times when the shot was blurry and you could tell the people, vehicles or aircraft was out of place. The shots of space were very much the same some good some bad.
Overall the movie was good but not really something I would want to go back and see again. It definitely had the feel of a movie you could take the whole family to, very wholesome. I wish it was more constant visually.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Chat Love in Books
Oct 2, 2020
I wanted to read this book immediately after reading the synopsis, and I was honoured when the author, Justine Faeth, approached me and sent me an ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
The book synopsis is a very promising one. Lucia is having trouble finding a man. After a few disastrous dates, she chooses to follow her friend’s advice and tries Chat Love, an online dating service.
As promising as the synopsis sounds, this book didn’t quite deliver. With Chat Love, I found the whole setting of the book unrealistic. There is a nice background story and a great idea, but it hasn’t been properly executed.
Lucia is an Italian lady. She is a city girl and a business woman. She is searching for love. See, Lucia is under pressure by her Italian family to get married. And I can completely understand that pressure, being born in a country where I have met people with similar beliefs. Lucia’s family thinks that a woman is made to be a mother, and not have a career. They think that if you are thirty and you haven’t got a boyfriend yet, you are useless and unworthy.
And I completely agree with Lucia when she tries to stand up to them and tell them how it’s important for her to find a man she will really love, not just marry in order to please her family. In some scenes though, it appears as if she hates her family, and has very bad attitude towards them. I understand completely where her frustration comes from.
But then, on the other hand, we have a Lucia that is being a hypocrite.
And while this whole book seems like she is searching for her true love, when someone appears and cares about her, she is acting as if she’s not interested. Woman, WHAT DO YOU WANT? She wants true love, and she doesn’t want to be used as a one-night stand, which is completely acceptable. But going on a date with a man for the first time, and telling him you want to get serious is creepy. Even if that is your long-term goal, you DO NOT say it on the first date. It scares people away. It makes people think you are a creep.
Also, given the fact that the synopsis promises an online app, this left me disappointed. During this book, we don’t get to really see a single chat happen through this app. Apart from a few letters from Jake. Honestly, I expected a back and forth conversations with men before a date happens. In the book, we get to see Lucia dating a lot of men. I didn’t stop to count them, but there must’ve been around twenty dates. And all these men had something wrong with them. But she never screwed up.
I will be honest with you now, and you people need to be honest with yourselves. In your life, you will meet people, and some people will make you giggle. Others might make you gag. But sometimes, the reason for a bad date is you. I am only trying to be honest here. I have screwed up a few dates myself, and you must have done the same thing too. That’s life though. We have to move on and try not to blame others for our mistakes. I wish this been represented in this book.
I really wish I loved this book.
I have mixed feelings, because despite all, this book did make me think and bring up discussions with people around the various topics, from family beliefs, to being creepy on first dates, to finding out what you really like. In a summary, as much as I didn’t enjoy it, I also am grateful for this book, for bringing out a lot of things to think about.
If you love chick-lit and short romance funny novels, you might enjoy it. If you think any of this discussion points is intriguing, you might enjoy it. I would love to have a chat and see what you think of this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated Annie's Recipe in Books
Feb 25, 2019
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #993300;"><em><strong>Excerpt
</strong></em></span><span style="color: #993300;">The small brown freckle under Annie’s right eye that he’d teased her about as a kid had developed into something of a beauty mark. It belonged there. To Levi’s dismay, his pulse picked up speed. He wanted more time with her. She was of Rumspringa age, so she could do non-Amish things. But that would only be for a couple of years, not forever.</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #993300;">Behind them, Aunt Abigail followed in a separate buggy with Aidan and Elijah. As Levi glanced back at Jake, the kid responded with a big grin. To Levi’s surprise, an unexpected appreciation for the ambience in the buggy, often referred to as the fiberglass box, welled in his chest. He sat back as the horses stepped it up.
</span></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #993300;">Automatically, Levi looked down. There wasn’t a trace of dirt on the beautiful navy velvet cushion that softened the hard bench. He remembered when his mother had used a lint brush to clean their buggy. On the sides were two small viewing windows and one in the back. A blue homemade quilt was rolled up and slightly draped over the backseat. He’d forgotten what it was like being in a means of transportation with no seat belts or radio. Levi missed the music. He was used to driving his dad’s truck and had traversed country roads long before he’d gotten his license a few years before.
</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #993300;">As they traveled, Levi glanced back to smile at little Jake. The response was a large toothless grin and eyes wide with excitement. Levi knew the child was dying to spend time with him. Levi had nearly decided not to come today. Even though there had been no mention of the shunning, everyone knew it had happened. He had never discussed it with anyone. He and Annie had shared everything when they were young. And despite their unbreakable bond, she was still Amish.
</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #993300;">I’ve got to stop thinking about her.</span>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #008080;"><strong>My Thoughts
I love a good Amish novel, and this is one that I thoroughly enjoyed. Ms. Baker is a supremely talented author who brings the perfect amount of humor, faith, and romance to a book that is filled with hope, forgiveness and understanding. Each page turn was something new, and kept me reading long into the night.</strong></span>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #008080;">Annie and Levi's characters were absolutely perfect for the story! I loved Annie's strong will and wit and I loved Levi's charming character. He really stole my heart from the start. After all they've both been through,I loved their interactions! Watching them together was so refreshing, especially after they have been a part for so long. </span>
</strong>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #008080;">This story of forgiveness, understanding, and faith is one that I highly recommend with 4 stars. Ms. Baker makes her stories pop and come to life before the reader. Not only does she do that, she adds recipes to the story making the reader hungry by the end. If you love Amish novels and books with characters who steal your heart forever, look no further! Grab you a copy of this talented lady's book. </span>
</strong>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em><strong><span style="color: #000000;">Giveaway</span>
</strong></em><strong>Lisa will be awarding a $50 Amazon or B/N GC to a randomly drawn winner via</strong></span>
<span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>rafflecopter during the tour.</strong></span>
<a id="rcwidget_57weeeuj" class="rcptr" href="http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/28e4345f2227/"; rel="nofollow" data-raflid="28e4345f2227" data-theme="classic" data-template="">a Rafflecopter giveaway</a>
<p style="text-align: center;"><script src="https://widget-prime.rafflecopter.com/launch.js"></script><a href="http://cafinatedreads.com/goddess-fish-promotions-blog-tour-review-annies-recipe-by-lisa-jones-baker/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Cafinated Reads</a>
</strong></em></span><span style="color: #993300;">The small brown freckle under Annie’s right eye that he’d teased her about as a kid had developed into something of a beauty mark. It belonged there. To Levi’s dismay, his pulse picked up speed. He wanted more time with her. She was of Rumspringa age, so she could do non-Amish things. But that would only be for a couple of years, not forever.</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #993300;">Behind them, Aunt Abigail followed in a separate buggy with Aidan and Elijah. As Levi glanced back at Jake, the kid responded with a big grin. To Levi’s surprise, an unexpected appreciation for the ambience in the buggy, often referred to as the fiberglass box, welled in his chest. He sat back as the horses stepped it up.
</span></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #993300;">Automatically, Levi looked down. There wasn’t a trace of dirt on the beautiful navy velvet cushion that softened the hard bench. He remembered when his mother had used a lint brush to clean their buggy. On the sides were two small viewing windows and one in the back. A blue homemade quilt was rolled up and slightly draped over the backseat. He’d forgotten what it was like being in a means of transportation with no seat belts or radio. Levi missed the music. He was used to driving his dad’s truck and had traversed country roads long before he’d gotten his license a few years before.
</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #993300;">As they traveled, Levi glanced back to smile at little Jake. The response was a large toothless grin and eyes wide with excitement. Levi knew the child was dying to spend time with him. Levi had nearly decided not to come today. Even though there had been no mention of the shunning, everyone knew it had happened. He had never discussed it with anyone. He and Annie had shared everything when they were young. And despite their unbreakable bond, she was still Amish.
</span>
<div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #993300;">I’ve got to stop thinking about her.</span>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #008080;"><strong>My Thoughts
I love a good Amish novel, and this is one that I thoroughly enjoyed. Ms. Baker is a supremely talented author who brings the perfect amount of humor, faith, and romance to a book that is filled with hope, forgiveness and understanding. Each page turn was something new, and kept me reading long into the night.</strong></span>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #008080;">Annie and Levi's characters were absolutely perfect for the story! I loved Annie's strong will and wit and I loved Levi's charming character. He really stole my heart from the start. After all they've both been through,I loved their interactions! Watching them together was so refreshing, especially after they have been a part for so long. </span>
</strong>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #008080;">This story of forgiveness, understanding, and faith is one that I highly recommend with 4 stars. Ms. Baker makes her stories pop and come to life before the reader. Not only does she do that, she adds recipes to the story making the reader hungry by the end. If you love Amish novels and books with characters who steal your heart forever, look no further! Grab you a copy of this talented lady's book. </span>
</strong>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em><strong><span style="color: #000000;">Giveaway</span>
</strong></em><strong>Lisa will be awarding a $50 Amazon or B/N GC to a randomly drawn winner via</strong></span>
<span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>rafflecopter during the tour.</strong></span>
<a id="rcwidget_57weeeuj" class="rcptr" href="http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/28e4345f2227/"; rel="nofollow" data-raflid="28e4345f2227" data-theme="classic" data-template="">a Rafflecopter giveaway</a>
<p style="text-align: center;"><script src="https://widget-prime.rafflecopter.com/launch.js"></script><a href="http://cafinatedreads.com/goddess-fish-promotions-blog-tour-review-annies-recipe-by-lisa-jones-baker/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Cafinated Reads</a>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated That Night in Books
Apr 8, 2019
I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike
It's been a year since the shooting in their town changed everything, and Jessica Nolan and Lucas Rossi are each trying to manage in their own way. Jess is trying to care for her severely depressed mom, who can barely get out of bed. That means helping pay the bills, cook the meals, and generally take care of everything. She misses her best friend desperately, but Marissa is across the country at a school for those suffering post traumatic stress. Meanwhile, Lucas is coping by taking up boxing. It helps relieve some of his stress and anxiety--and get him away from the watchful eye of his newly overprotective mom. When Jess and Lucas meet at their after-school job, they realize they have one big thing in common: their shared tragedy. It's not exactly something they want to share. But slowly the two become friends. Can they help each other move forward from some of the horrors they've been through?
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)