Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Should we be allowed to laugh at brutality? Is there room for comedy in a film about the Second World War? These are just some of the questions Quentin Tarantino’s latest film “Inglorious Bastards” is sure to bring to mind.
“Inglorious Bastards” is composed of two intertwined stories broken into chapters combining fictitious and factual historic events. The two stories, the tragic tale of orphaned Jewish girl Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) and that of an oddly funny group of American soldiers, called “the Bastards”, create introspections into the meaning of glory, destruction, and propaganda.
Familiar faces are scattered throughout the film from creator of “the Office” B.J. Norvak to “Austin Powers“ star Mike Myers. The standout performance of Lieutenant Aldo Raine, played by the always-evolving Brad Pitt, is both comical and clever and the role of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, Christoph Waltz, is so evil that, within the scope of the film, he some how manages to overshadow Hitler.
While the film is visually graphic, it is the ideas of violence rather than explicit visuals that litter the film. These violent scenes, from scalping to strangulation, are more dramatic than visually accurate.
The film did drag in parts such, as the dark Cinderella-like bar scene, and there was definitely room for further character development for “the Bastards”, yet the sly structure of the film shatters these minor faults but keeping viewers completely invested in the plotline.
“Inglorious Bastards” mixes classic film elements with techniques hauntingly David Lynch in style. From elements of television westerns to the hauntingly familiar sound of David Bowie, Tarintino has created a new way of looking at the past, all while using a time generally perceived as too awful to mention as a background for laughter.
Twisted, tortured, glorious and not “Inglorious Bastards” delivers as a film bound to become classic Tarantino. Fans will be elated and those who oppose the film’s adult themes will not walk away without at least thinking about the meaning of this one-of-kind feature.
“Inglorious Bastards” is composed of two intertwined stories broken into chapters combining fictitious and factual historic events. The two stories, the tragic tale of orphaned Jewish girl Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) and that of an oddly funny group of American soldiers, called “the Bastards”, create introspections into the meaning of glory, destruction, and propaganda.
Familiar faces are scattered throughout the film from creator of “the Office” B.J. Norvak to “Austin Powers“ star Mike Myers. The standout performance of Lieutenant Aldo Raine, played by the always-evolving Brad Pitt, is both comical and clever and the role of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, Christoph Waltz, is so evil that, within the scope of the film, he some how manages to overshadow Hitler.
While the film is visually graphic, it is the ideas of violence rather than explicit visuals that litter the film. These violent scenes, from scalping to strangulation, are more dramatic than visually accurate.
The film did drag in parts such, as the dark Cinderella-like bar scene, and there was definitely room for further character development for “the Bastards”, yet the sly structure of the film shatters these minor faults but keeping viewers completely invested in the plotline.
“Inglorious Bastards” mixes classic film elements with techniques hauntingly David Lynch in style. From elements of television westerns to the hauntingly familiar sound of David Bowie, Tarintino has created a new way of looking at the past, all while using a time generally perceived as too awful to mention as a background for laughter.
Twisted, tortured, glorious and not “Inglorious Bastards” delivers as a film bound to become classic Tarantino. Fans will be elated and those who oppose the film’s adult themes will not walk away without at least thinking about the meaning of this one-of-kind feature.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Before the Crown in Books
Jun 14, 2020
Thank you to Netgalley and Flora Harding for giving me the opportunity to read an advanced copy of this novel in exchange for an honest review.
Before the Crown is a beautiful historical novel which delves deep into the romance between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip of Greece, perhaps better known as Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh.
However, this is not a traditional romance and Harding does not hold back in laying out all the struggles Elizabeth and Philip faced. From the King and Queen's disapproval of the match for their daughter to the effects of public opinion on the relationship, Flora Harding covers it all.
Nor does this novel present the engagement as all hearts and flowers. Despite Elizabeth being attracted to Philip from a young age, this is initially a one-sided crush and a political arrangement for the couple. However, due to Flora Harding presenting her novel from the perspective of both Elizabeth and Philip, the reader is able to experience first hand the doubts, worries, longing and evolution of this infamous relationship.
I will be honest it is hard not to envision the Netflix series when you read this novel but it is by no means a copy cat situation. Harding provides such interesting insights into Philip's lifestyle and his family that it is hard not to pity the sacrifices that he makes in order to be with Elizabeth.
In 'The Crown' young Philip was a bit of a dirt bag and, although Harding's Prince is no angel, he is clearly fighting an uphill battle against the aristocracy's view of him. It is difficult not to sympathise.
I would have liked an author's note to know how much of the story is fact and how much is fiction or speculation. However, given the privacy of the Royal Family I imagine any factual insights are rare.
In summary, 'Before the Crown' is a captivating read, exploring the sacrifices and struggles where we often blindly see prejudice, all against the backdrop of WWII Europe.
Before the Crown is a beautiful historical novel which delves deep into the romance between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip of Greece, perhaps better known as Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh.
However, this is not a traditional romance and Harding does not hold back in laying out all the struggles Elizabeth and Philip faced. From the King and Queen's disapproval of the match for their daughter to the effects of public opinion on the relationship, Flora Harding covers it all.
Nor does this novel present the engagement as all hearts and flowers. Despite Elizabeth being attracted to Philip from a young age, this is initially a one-sided crush and a political arrangement for the couple. However, due to Flora Harding presenting her novel from the perspective of both Elizabeth and Philip, the reader is able to experience first hand the doubts, worries, longing and evolution of this infamous relationship.
I will be honest it is hard not to envision the Netflix series when you read this novel but it is by no means a copy cat situation. Harding provides such interesting insights into Philip's lifestyle and his family that it is hard not to pity the sacrifices that he makes in order to be with Elizabeth.
In 'The Crown' young Philip was a bit of a dirt bag and, although Harding's Prince is no angel, he is clearly fighting an uphill battle against the aristocracy's view of him. It is difficult not to sympathise.
I would have liked an author's note to know how much of the story is fact and how much is fiction or speculation. However, given the privacy of the Royal Family I imagine any factual insights are rare.
In summary, 'Before the Crown' is a captivating read, exploring the sacrifices and struggles where we often blindly see prejudice, all against the backdrop of WWII Europe.
ClareR (5596 KP) rated We Germans in Books
Aug 17, 2023
We Germans is told from the point of view of a German soldier on the Eastern Front. A young British man asks his German grandfather about his role in the war, and whilst his grandfather doesn’t want to talk about it with him, he does leave him a letter to read about what happened to him after his death.
That letter is the book we read, with asides and clarifications from the grandson.
We don’t have a story that covers from the beginning to the end of the war. This is told from when things have started to go wrong for the Germans. The army is fragmented. The soldiers don’t really know where they’re going, but they know that they want to try and make it back to Germany - on foot. These men are scared, confused and the acts they see committed by both sides are horrific.
The grandson helps us to see the effects of the war on his grandfather, and his subsequent imprisonment in Russia. How 70 years post-war have changed him, how the war changed him as well. He acknowledges that he was to blame for what had happened as much as anyone else, but that he was expected to toe the line as a soldier.
This is historical fiction, but its well researched and has the hint of reality about it. It really gives the reader something to think about, and I know that personally, I haven’t found many books out there that cover this period of history in this way. I can’t say as it’s something I want to avidly read lots of books about, but having read this from a more human perspective (rather than a factual history book that lists dates and places), it feels very personal.
This is a short, powerful novel, and I think it’s worth the time spent reading it if you have an interest in either the time in history, or human nature.
That letter is the book we read, with asides and clarifications from the grandson.
We don’t have a story that covers from the beginning to the end of the war. This is told from when things have started to go wrong for the Germans. The army is fragmented. The soldiers don’t really know where they’re going, but they know that they want to try and make it back to Germany - on foot. These men are scared, confused and the acts they see committed by both sides are horrific.
The grandson helps us to see the effects of the war on his grandfather, and his subsequent imprisonment in Russia. How 70 years post-war have changed him, how the war changed him as well. He acknowledges that he was to blame for what had happened as much as anyone else, but that he was expected to toe the line as a soldier.
This is historical fiction, but its well researched and has the hint of reality about it. It really gives the reader something to think about, and I know that personally, I haven’t found many books out there that cover this period of history in this way. I can’t say as it’s something I want to avidly read lots of books about, but having read this from a more human perspective (rather than a factual history book that lists dates and places), it feels very personal.
This is a short, powerful novel, and I think it’s worth the time spent reading it if you have an interest in either the time in history, or human nature.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated The Last American Vampire in Books
May 25, 2018
A Rare Case of The Sequel Being Better than the First Book
I loved this book. Honestly, I'm not certain that I didn't like it even more than "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." One of my favorite things about both of these books is that Smith writes them like history books (complete with footnotes and actual photographs of things like Teddy Roosevelt posing with an elephant he'd just killed and Jack Ruby with his gun jammed into Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach). The facts he uses in his book are so... FACTUAL! I mean, seriously, the only thing keeping a person from reading these books as absolute truth is the fact that s/he doesn't believe vampires actually exist. But if a person DID believe in vampires? Oh yes, everything in these books is absolutely plausible. I can honestly see some confused people who are on the fence about whether or not vampires are real reading this book, finishing it, slamming it down, and saying, "I KNEW IT! I -KNEW- THEY WERE REAL!" Ha. Seriously though, the realism in these books is what makes them so much fun and so wonderful.
The thing I like about this book so much -- the thing that very possibly makes me enjoy this one more than the original -- is all that cameos in the book -- Mark Twain, Howard Hughes, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Henry Irving, Eliot Ness.... I mean, HELLO?! What a stellar, badass cast of cameo characters. Although, honestly, "cameo" is not the most appropriate word because some of these characters played pretty major roles in the novel. It was fantastic. Viewing Howard Hughes' eccentricities and insanities through vampire-colored glasses is simply... perfect. It doesn't seemed forced at all. Wait, after a plane crash, Howard Hughes was turned into a vampire? ... Yeah, I can see that. That makes perfect sense. And it DOES! It is such an easy transition from mentally ill billionaire to crazy vampire. Not such a stretch. And Rasputin? OH yeah. That guy was TOTALLY a vampire. :-p
Anyway. Now I'm kind of rambling. But seriously, this book was fantastic, so much fun. There wasn't a single part of this book that I didn't love.
The thing I like about this book so much -- the thing that very possibly makes me enjoy this one more than the original -- is all that cameos in the book -- Mark Twain, Howard Hughes, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Henry Irving, Eliot Ness.... I mean, HELLO?! What a stellar, badass cast of cameo characters. Although, honestly, "cameo" is not the most appropriate word because some of these characters played pretty major roles in the novel. It was fantastic. Viewing Howard Hughes' eccentricities and insanities through vampire-colored glasses is simply... perfect. It doesn't seemed forced at all. Wait, after a plane crash, Howard Hughes was turned into a vampire? ... Yeah, I can see that. That makes perfect sense. And it DOES! It is such an easy transition from mentally ill billionaire to crazy vampire. Not such a stretch. And Rasputin? OH yeah. That guy was TOTALLY a vampire. :-p
Anyway. Now I'm kind of rambling. But seriously, this book was fantastic, so much fun. There wasn't a single part of this book that I didn't love.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Solid Bounceback for the DCEU
After the safety of her homeland Themyscira is threatened, Diana (Gal Gadot), strongest of the Amazon warriors, hurls herself into the middle of World War I to find the source of the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 2
The movie starts off a bit slow, but does pick up rather quickly after the first ten minutes. I wasn’t in love in how they tried to establish the land of the Amazonians. Felt too factual and not very story driven. I know it’s one of those things that has to be done, but I’ve seen it done way better a number of times before so I can’t excuse it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The beautiful shots of Themyscira and the Amazonian training rituals borders on poetic at times, something you might read about in a famous ballad. Director Patty Jenkins does an amazing job of capturing the sanctity of this place, a place you don’t want to see get violated. Themyscira is pictured perfectly, it’s not just a Hawaii with women warriors. You can feel the change when Diana hits the real world and things become darker.
I thought it might be hard to capture Wonder Woman’s true strength on the big screen, but it is done almost effortlessly here with gritty scenes and slow-motion shots on impact blows. While I thought BVS overdid things with its slow-motion efforts, Jenkins has a way of capturing the perfect mood when she slows the camera down rather than it being just a mere effect. She really captures the heart of the story in every shot.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Story was great except…Did we really need that one scene between Diana and Steve (Chris Pine)? I thought, not only did it betray the overall message of the film, but it felt forced and unnecessary. I would much rather have watched Wonder Woman just kick ass and take names and remain true to who her character was.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 89
After a couple crappy movies, DC finally began to right the ship with Wonder Woman. I am hoping the future will bring more movies like this and less movies like Suicide Squad. Not only is it a great film for women superheroes, but it’s just a great film period.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 2
The movie starts off a bit slow, but does pick up rather quickly after the first ten minutes. I wasn’t in love in how they tried to establish the land of the Amazonians. Felt too factual and not very story driven. I know it’s one of those things that has to be done, but I’ve seen it done way better a number of times before so I can’t excuse it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The beautiful shots of Themyscira and the Amazonian training rituals borders on poetic at times, something you might read about in a famous ballad. Director Patty Jenkins does an amazing job of capturing the sanctity of this place, a place you don’t want to see get violated. Themyscira is pictured perfectly, it’s not just a Hawaii with women warriors. You can feel the change when Diana hits the real world and things become darker.
I thought it might be hard to capture Wonder Woman’s true strength on the big screen, but it is done almost effortlessly here with gritty scenes and slow-motion shots on impact blows. While I thought BVS overdid things with its slow-motion efforts, Jenkins has a way of capturing the perfect mood when she slows the camera down rather than it being just a mere effect. She really captures the heart of the story in every shot.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Story was great except…Did we really need that one scene between Diana and Steve (Chris Pine)? I thought, not only did it betray the overall message of the film, but it felt forced and unnecessary. I would much rather have watched Wonder Woman just kick ass and take names and remain true to who her character was.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 89
After a couple crappy movies, DC finally began to right the ship with Wonder Woman. I am hoping the future will bring more movies like this and less movies like Suicide Squad. Not only is it a great film for women superheroes, but it’s just a great film period.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Mythology of Richard III in Books
Dec 21, 2018
As usual, Ashdown-Hill has given us a well-written and accessible book with an extensive index and bibliography and reasoning well backed up with factual evidence; I find his books are always worth reading an a refreshing change from a lot of the nonsense there is out there. In this particular book he looks at myths and legends, both old and rather worryingly modern, that surround one or our best known monarchs.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 2 in TV
Nov 5, 2018
Too long and unsatisfying
Contains spoilers, click to show
Steven Avery is back, still appealing his conviction for the murder of Theresa Hallbach, as is his nephew, Brendan Dassey.
The series was interesting, giving so much insight into the US courts and appeals system, which seems very convoluted, with so much apparent new evidence emerging on more thorough investigation and forensic analysis.
Avery's appeal case is submitted based on lots of facets - ineffectiveness of counsel, constitutional violations, new evidence etc etc. How this evidence is uncovered was really interesting and compelling. However, you have to wonder whether the submission of Avery's appeal was made too early in order to satisfy the TV series. It seemed like so much more evidence was uncovered after it was filed, which would have made the case so much stronger - fine if it goes to trial as this can all be used, but once the original appeal is submitted, that is what the judge will use to assess whether it should. Again, this facet of the appeal system seems unfair - the same judge reviews the appeal repeatedly and is bound to get fed up with hearing the same appeal over and over again. If the conviction was a result of large-scale corruption and evidence-planting, they had to nail the appeal first time, not file some of it then add bits and pieces later.
Dassey's appeal also seemed flawed, focusing so much on his coerced confession, when they should have paid more attention to how little evidence there was against him other than a dubious confession. I guess it was a case of having College lawyers who saw it more as an intellectual/theoretical exercise and were possibly a bit green for the courts in action.
All in all, the series ends with no progress for either party - Dassey's case has been all the way to the top with no joy. However, Avery's case is still in the early stages and the fight is clearly not over. This felt similar to the filing of his appeal, submitted too early just to satisfy TV scheduling.
The series, while compelling throughout, is too long for the content included and could easily have been edited down to 5 episodes or less.
I suspect another few episodes will be released next year, if some progress is made on either case.
The series was interesting, giving so much insight into the US courts and appeals system, which seems very convoluted, with so much apparent new evidence emerging on more thorough investigation and forensic analysis.
Avery's appeal case is submitted based on lots of facets - ineffectiveness of counsel, constitutional violations, new evidence etc etc. How this evidence is uncovered was really interesting and compelling. However, you have to wonder whether the submission of Avery's appeal was made too early in order to satisfy the TV series. It seemed like so much more evidence was uncovered after it was filed, which would have made the case so much stronger - fine if it goes to trial as this can all be used, but once the original appeal is submitted, that is what the judge will use to assess whether it should. Again, this facet of the appeal system seems unfair - the same judge reviews the appeal repeatedly and is bound to get fed up with hearing the same appeal over and over again. If the conviction was a result of large-scale corruption and evidence-planting, they had to nail the appeal first time, not file some of it then add bits and pieces later.
Dassey's appeal also seemed flawed, focusing so much on his coerced confession, when they should have paid more attention to how little evidence there was against him other than a dubious confession. I guess it was a case of having College lawyers who saw it more as an intellectual/theoretical exercise and were possibly a bit green for the courts in action.
All in all, the series ends with no progress for either party - Dassey's case has been all the way to the top with no joy. However, Avery's case is still in the early stages and the fight is clearly not over. This felt similar to the filing of his appeal, submitted too early just to satisfy TV scheduling.
The series, while compelling throughout, is too long for the content included and could easily have been edited down to 5 episodes or less.
I suspect another few episodes will be released next year, if some progress is made on either case.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Forgotten Summer in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Is the truth something you really want to know? Jane Cambon has the perfect husband and spends her life travelling from their flat in London to Luc’s family estate in the south of France. Despite the hostility from Luc’s mother, Clarisse Cambon, Jane loves spending time amongst the workers in the vineyard and the olive groves. However, a tragic event causes Jane to question how well she really new her husband.
<i>The Forgotten Summer </i>by Carol Drinkwater captures the southern France climate in such a way that readers will wish to go there themselves. But for Jane it becomes a place of grief and tension as Clarisse’s aggression only increases, bringing back memories of the summer when Jane was fourteen. Not only that, there is the enigma of Jane’s husband, a filmmaker. What was he filming? Why did her keep it secret? What happened during his early years in Algeria? And, most importantly, who is Annabelle?
Not knowing the answers to many questions keeps the reader engaged in the narrative. Slowly, issues are resolved, but some answers are not uncovered until the closing of the novel. After about two thirds of the book it is possible to guess the truth about Luc’s close kept secret, and it is almost annoying that Jane is blind to it.
Drinkwater has put a lot of time and effort into <i>The Forgotten Summer</i>. The amount of research she went through to keep it as factual as possible must have been phenomenal. From reading this book we learn a little about the Algerian War of Independence – something that is glossed over in French history – and the art of winemaking: both equally interesting, particularly the former, which most readers will not have heard of.
An issue that I had with this story was the way Jane was portrayed. I kept imagining her as a younger woman even though it had been explained that she was in her late forties. There was nothing in her description or personality that fitted a middle aged character. This may also be due to the way Clarisse treated Jane: as if she were incompetent and untrustworthy.
<i>The Forgotten Summer </i>is an ideal book for fans of Victoria Hislop, particularly if you also enjoy reading about southern European countries. It is engaging and exciting with a handful of lovely characters for you to admire. With its air of mystery, this book will be hard for you to put down.
Is the truth something you really want to know? Jane Cambon has the perfect husband and spends her life travelling from their flat in London to Luc’s family estate in the south of France. Despite the hostility from Luc’s mother, Clarisse Cambon, Jane loves spending time amongst the workers in the vineyard and the olive groves. However, a tragic event causes Jane to question how well she really new her husband.
<i>The Forgotten Summer </i>by Carol Drinkwater captures the southern France climate in such a way that readers will wish to go there themselves. But for Jane it becomes a place of grief and tension as Clarisse’s aggression only increases, bringing back memories of the summer when Jane was fourteen. Not only that, there is the enigma of Jane’s husband, a filmmaker. What was he filming? Why did her keep it secret? What happened during his early years in Algeria? And, most importantly, who is Annabelle?
Not knowing the answers to many questions keeps the reader engaged in the narrative. Slowly, issues are resolved, but some answers are not uncovered until the closing of the novel. After about two thirds of the book it is possible to guess the truth about Luc’s close kept secret, and it is almost annoying that Jane is blind to it.
Drinkwater has put a lot of time and effort into <i>The Forgotten Summer</i>. The amount of research she went through to keep it as factual as possible must have been phenomenal. From reading this book we learn a little about the Algerian War of Independence – something that is glossed over in French history – and the art of winemaking: both equally interesting, particularly the former, which most readers will not have heard of.
An issue that I had with this story was the way Jane was portrayed. I kept imagining her as a younger woman even though it had been explained that she was in her late forties. There was nothing in her description or personality that fitted a middle aged character. This may also be due to the way Clarisse treated Jane: as if she were incompetent and untrustworthy.
<i>The Forgotten Summer </i>is an ideal book for fans of Victoria Hislop, particularly if you also enjoy reading about southern European countries. It is engaging and exciting with a handful of lovely characters for you to admire. With its air of mystery, this book will be hard for you to put down.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dreamgirls (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The rise of Motown records is one of the music industries greatest tales. Berry Gordy Jr. in 1959 established the record label that not only made stars of numerous talents such as Diana Ross and the Supremes and the Jackson 5, but helped African American talents finds success in other markets and mainstream radio.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonce’ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonce’ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphy’s performance is must see film.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonce’ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonce’ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphy’s performance is must see film.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.