Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “ape” in “The Great Esc-ape”.
2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the one of the big movie surprises for me of that year. With staggeringly good mo-cap for the apes and a touching and memorable story it was (or would have been) a 5-Fad classic. 2014’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” whilst also good took a slight backward step. With “War”, the form is back almost to top notch, and this is a summer release at last deserving of the suffix “blockbuster”.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The bloody action. (2 more)
The rhythmic, pounding score.
Amleth's visions and strange encounters.
May be too weird or slow for some. (2 more)
Won't change your opinion of Robert Eggers if you already dislike him as a filmmaker.
...Did you say fart sniffing?
A Gory Viking Epic Forged in Boisterous Greatness
The Northman is director Robert Eggers third feature length film after The Witch and The Lighthouse. The film is written by Eggers and Sjón (Lamb, frequent collaborator with Björk). The Northman is described as an epic historical action drama, but is essentially a Viking revenge film. Taking place in AD 895, King Aurvandill War-Raven (Ethan Hawke) is killed by his brother, Fjölnir (Claes Bang). Aurvandill’s son, Amleth (Oscar Novak portrays young Amleth) flees and swears revenge on his uncle while vowing to save his mother Queen Gudrún (Nicole Kidman).
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
Kelly J Tyrrell (3 KP) rated Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again in Books
May 21, 2018
Truly Inspired
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a book review for the not-yet-released Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans. This book is available in stores June 12th, but you can pre-order it at rachelheldevans.com.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
I should start by saying - I filled out an application to be on the Launch Team for this new book, so I received an Advanced Reader Copy from the Publisher.
I first came across Rachel Held Evans when her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood crossed upon my Goodreads page. I thought, "Now there's a crazy idea", and while it was, the writing was not. The writing was wonderful! I followed along to grab Searching for Sunday, too.
So as any good 21st century fan, I started following Evans on Facebook, where I saw polls for naming a new book. A new book?? Yay! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd get to be reading it a month in advance of release.
"Bible stores don't have to mean just one thing."
Inspired is largely about the importance of stories. Not just Bible stories , but our own stories, too. Stories like how your Grandpa had to quit smoking to get Grandma to go out with him. Stories like how you met your spouse over $0.25 tacos. Stories like how your great-uncle got kicked out of military school necessitating not one, not two, but FOUR rosaries at his funeral.
There are stories about who we are, where we come from, what we're willing to fight for, and what we've learned along the way. There are stories of good news and bad, and who we make community with. And the Bible is no different. Rather than dissecting all of the stories of the Bible, Evans divides the book into genres of stories. There are Wisdom stories, stories of deliverance, Church stories, and of course, Gospels.
"The good news is good for the whole world, certainly, but what makes it good varies from person to person, and community to community."
This theme of interpretation is recurrent through the whole book. Bible stories, gospel stories, war stories - none of them have one singular meaning. For Evans, growing up in a tradition that took the Bible as literally true and the inerrant Word of God, one singular meaning was not only suggested, but preached everyday. And though I grew up Catholic, and not Evangelical Protestant, I can relate.
Leaving the Catholic faith in my late teens to re-emerge as a Progressive Protestant in my thirties has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. I've never known anyone who takes the Bible literally (or at least if I did, I didn't know it). Not until I started homeschooling did I ever meet a person who actually believed in Creation. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it has never occurred to me to take the Bible literally.
But I am, overall, an academic person. I love to read, analyze, and over-think everything. But since I did not grow up with the Bible's cast of characters like old friends, I was thirty-years-old before I started attending Bible studies at my local church. Instantly, I was sucked in to the weirdness and messiness of the Bible. Which made me ask - how does one even take the Bible literally?
"The truth is, the bible isn't an answer book. It's not even a book, really. Rather it's a diverse library of ancient texts, spanning multiple centuries, genres, and cultures, authored by a host of different authors coming from a variety of different perspectives...No one has the originals."
You could almost say that God delighted in canonizing inconsistencies, trusting that we could use our [God given] intellect to figure out what it needed to mean.
Because, things change, don't they? A historical, analytical approach to studying the Bible tells us that time, place, and context matter. The Epistles of Paul were not written to us. They were written to the church in Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus. And by church, I mean incredibly small groups of people, gathered in someone's house, illegally I might add. They weren't written to the 2.1 billion of us, flaunting our religion around the world like we own the place.
Indeed, Inspired was so good, and covered such a rich variety of story types, that if I keep talking, I'm going to ruin it for you. So, I guess I'll leave you with this. If you have ever read the Bible and thought:
...how could God just leave Tamar like that?
...how could God call David a man after his own heart?
...Jesus sure does touch a lot of people he ain't supposed to, what's up with that?
...what's so bad about being a tax collector, anyway?
you should probably read this book. NOT because this book answers any of those questions. It doesn't. It doesn't even try to. Rather, Rachel Held Evans in her Southern mama wisdom, helps remind us that maybe having all the answers isn't actually the answer. Maybe reveling in the magic of the Bible is the Hokey Pokey. Maybe that IS what it's all about.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Her Wicked Ways in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Historical
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2019
Caught in a bad Roma
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been a long while since I watched a film deserving of a truly, harshly negative review. I have gotten so close so many times, and I’ll be damned if Netflix hadn’t gotten close to earning that with the fridge-logic that ruined Bird Box. Even Bird Box, though, feels enjoyable in retrospect compared to another Netflix exclusive: Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Vikings in TV
Feb 4, 2018
Somewhat historically accurate (2 more)
Visually Compelling
Gripping drama that keeps you wanting more
One of my favourite shows of all time
Vikings, for the first 3 seasons, tells the story of the rise to power of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok, though the character himself in reality, despite being written about in sagas and poems from that era, remains a mystery to historians to this day.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Rebel Rose (The Queen's Council #1) in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Set against the backdrop of revolutionary France, ‘Rebel Rose’ continues the story of Beauty and the Beast after the curse is broken. Belle and her Prince now have to find a way to navigate married life, rank, politics and explain a 10-year absence from the French Court of Versailles.
Controversially, Emma Theriault baits the hardcore Disney fans straight out of the gates by naming her Prince Lio (Lio, Lion, beast, gettit?) rather than Adam. In the grand scheme of things this can easily be forgiven but it still seems a strange choice. Maybe Adam was too English for a French Prince?
However, the use of first person perspective ensures that our protagonist remains firmly in Belle. Belle has refused the title of Princess upon marriage in order to stay true to her roots but is constantly hiding her true self: even referring to a trip around Europe as “one last adventure before the walls of the castle close around her”. When Belle witnesses the revolutionary sparks within the city this divides her further: how can she be part of the nobility these people rally against and an avid “commoner” at the same time?
In truth, Belle as a character divided me as well. Belle has always been my favourite Disney Princess (possibly to do with that massive library) and, in the most part, I feel Theriault wrote her well and stayed true to the character. However, in the early pages Belle felt very spoilt and selfish to me: preferring to disguise herself and explore Paris rather than support Lio in explaining his decade-long disappearing act to King Louis.
I was intrigued to know what my fellow reviewers thought and was unsurprised to see a LOT of criticism of our heroine, her shunning of the title of Princess and her lack of enthusiasm to be a leader. However, I almost felt that this made the story more realistic. Just because she broke a curse and married a Prince doesn’t mean she can automatically feel ready and comfortable leading a kingdom! Maybe she just has a fondness for hairy men?
Belle’s reluctance and tentativeness to lead also fed very nicely into her passion to improve the lives of the residents of the kingdom of Aveyon. This is common sense to her and therefore doesn’t feel like ruling. Indeed, it is not seen by any of the main characters as ruling but in the end it saves them all from a revolution of their own.
I would have liked Lio to be a little bit more developed than he was. The fact that he harboured an element of PTSD from the curse was really interesting but not explored any further than his nightmares and aversion towards roses. There was undoubtedly chemistry between him and Belle but it was just a bit lacklustre in my opinion. This may be due to his absence for a lot of the book but I felt the reader could have loved him a lot more than we did.
Lio’s cousin Bastien is the slimy villain of the tale and I would have liked a bit more mystery and suspense within his character. I appreciated that Belle didn’t like him initially as he was a powdered, wig wearing noble who was close to King Louis, basically as far away from Belle as possible. Bastien is also quite snobby towards Belle in his earliest chapters so you can’t blame her for disliking him.
However, by using language to plainly show that Belle distrusts her husband’s cousin, Theriault instantly creates a flashing neon “villain” sign above his head. This would have been fine in a middle-grade book but within YA I think the reader could have been afforded to be misled a couple of times before uncovering Bastien’s real intentions.
**This section contains spoilers**
I also believe that Bastien’s eventual story arc was a tad unbelievable. At first I thought his revolutionary sympathies and further plots with various goons was a ruse in order to gain the throne for himself, particularly once he had established himself firmly with the advisory. Emma Theriault’s decision to keep Bastien true to the revolution seemed rushed, and a bit odd to be honest. This is a noble who lives in the lap of luxury and attends to King Louis himself but who then turns on his own kind after basically forcing the kingdom of Aveyon to break away from France? It didn’t seem plausible to me.
Rebel Rose is an easy to read continuation of one of our favourite Disney tales. It reintroduces us to old favourites such as Mrs Potts and Lumiere as well as introducing new characters such as Marguerite and Bastien. Belle’s journey to staying true to herself and following her gut is one anyone can empathise with and her discovery that she does not have to appease to outsider’s expectations will never cease to be important.
The magic contained within this novel is a perfect springboard for the rest of the novels within the Queen’s Council series: the next one is based on Mulan and will be written by Livia Blackburne before Jasmine’s story by Alexandra Monir follows in 2022. The majority of the action within this novel does take place towards the end so it can be a little slow paced and politics focused but I enjoyed seeing Belle and Lio break free of their fairytale life and become a little more real.
Although this isn’t my favourite Disney novel, I do appreciate the break away from the retelling genre and the move towards bringing these well-known characters into the real world. For a debut novel I think Emma Theriault should be immensely proud: the research for the historical context alone must have been a mission!
Controversially, Emma Theriault baits the hardcore Disney fans straight out of the gates by naming her Prince Lio (Lio, Lion, beast, gettit?) rather than Adam. In the grand scheme of things this can easily be forgiven but it still seems a strange choice. Maybe Adam was too English for a French Prince?
However, the use of first person perspective ensures that our protagonist remains firmly in Belle. Belle has refused the title of Princess upon marriage in order to stay true to her roots but is constantly hiding her true self: even referring to a trip around Europe as “one last adventure before the walls of the castle close around her”. When Belle witnesses the revolutionary sparks within the city this divides her further: how can she be part of the nobility these people rally against and an avid “commoner” at the same time?
In truth, Belle as a character divided me as well. Belle has always been my favourite Disney Princess (possibly to do with that massive library) and, in the most part, I feel Theriault wrote her well and stayed true to the character. However, in the early pages Belle felt very spoilt and selfish to me: preferring to disguise herself and explore Paris rather than support Lio in explaining his decade-long disappearing act to King Louis.
I was intrigued to know what my fellow reviewers thought and was unsurprised to see a LOT of criticism of our heroine, her shunning of the title of Princess and her lack of enthusiasm to be a leader. However, I almost felt that this made the story more realistic. Just because she broke a curse and married a Prince doesn’t mean she can automatically feel ready and comfortable leading a kingdom! Maybe she just has a fondness for hairy men?
Belle’s reluctance and tentativeness to lead also fed very nicely into her passion to improve the lives of the residents of the kingdom of Aveyon. This is common sense to her and therefore doesn’t feel like ruling. Indeed, it is not seen by any of the main characters as ruling but in the end it saves them all from a revolution of their own.
I would have liked Lio to be a little bit more developed than he was. The fact that he harboured an element of PTSD from the curse was really interesting but not explored any further than his nightmares and aversion towards roses. There was undoubtedly chemistry between him and Belle but it was just a bit lacklustre in my opinion. This may be due to his absence for a lot of the book but I felt the reader could have loved him a lot more than we did.
Lio’s cousin Bastien is the slimy villain of the tale and I would have liked a bit more mystery and suspense within his character. I appreciated that Belle didn’t like him initially as he was a powdered, wig wearing noble who was close to King Louis, basically as far away from Belle as possible. Bastien is also quite snobby towards Belle in his earliest chapters so you can’t blame her for disliking him.
However, by using language to plainly show that Belle distrusts her husband’s cousin, Theriault instantly creates a flashing neon “villain” sign above his head. This would have been fine in a middle-grade book but within YA I think the reader could have been afforded to be misled a couple of times before uncovering Bastien’s real intentions.
**This section contains spoilers**
I also believe that Bastien’s eventual story arc was a tad unbelievable. At first I thought his revolutionary sympathies and further plots with various goons was a ruse in order to gain the throne for himself, particularly once he had established himself firmly with the advisory. Emma Theriault’s decision to keep Bastien true to the revolution seemed rushed, and a bit odd to be honest. This is a noble who lives in the lap of luxury and attends to King Louis himself but who then turns on his own kind after basically forcing the kingdom of Aveyon to break away from France? It didn’t seem plausible to me.
Rebel Rose is an easy to read continuation of one of our favourite Disney tales. It reintroduces us to old favourites such as Mrs Potts and Lumiere as well as introducing new characters such as Marguerite and Bastien. Belle’s journey to staying true to herself and following her gut is one anyone can empathise with and her discovery that she does not have to appease to outsider’s expectations will never cease to be important.
The magic contained within this novel is a perfect springboard for the rest of the novels within the Queen’s Council series: the next one is based on Mulan and will be written by Livia Blackburne before Jasmine’s story by Alexandra Monir follows in 2022. The majority of the action within this novel does take place towards the end so it can be a little slow paced and politics focused but I enjoyed seeing Belle and Lio break free of their fairytale life and become a little more real.
Although this isn’t my favourite Disney novel, I do appreciate the break away from the retelling genre and the move towards bringing these well-known characters into the real world. For a debut novel I think Emma Theriault should be immensely proud: the research for the historical context alone must have been a mission!