Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Widows in Books
Jun 5, 2019
The Widows by Jess Montgomery is inspired by the true story of Ohio’s first female sheriff. The plot delves into how two women fought greed and violence while overcoming the loss of a loved one.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
The author noted, “This is a darker and deeper style of writing, much more than my other stories. For example, I examine the Pinkerton men and the violence they used. I read multiple books that talked about how these men would shoot up the striking camps. I put in this book quote by one of the Pinkerton men, ‘A real war, and then, rule of law won’t matter. Those miners who resist, why, we’ll put ‘em down like rabid dogs.’”
The protagonists Lily and Marvena are based on the real-life historical figures of Maude Collins, the first female sheriff in Ohio, and Mother Jones, the famous activist and labor organizer. Sheriff Daniel Ross, the husband of Lily is murdered and no one knows by whom. Those powerful in the town want to pin it on a coal miner, Marvena’s brother. She has something in common with Lily since she also lost her husband, but to a coal mining accident. Because the mine owners think she will be easy to control, Lily is appointed sheriff pending the next election. But having a mind of her own and a sense of justice she partners with Marvena to find the elusive murderer and Marvena’s missing daughter.
“I wrote both Lily and Marvena as tough. Lily is sensitive but is also a protector who wants to support her community. She keeps her emotions close to her heart. Marvena is fierce and persistent, but also has a tender streak. Although both women were wary of each other at first, they have a common goal to find out what happened. They end up with a strong friendship and recognize that each is balancing their own demons.”
Readers might be curious as to what is real and what is fiction. Montgomery commented, “In real life Collins had five children, and the person who killed her husband was known. I decided it would be interesting to have Lily take the sheriff position to find out who killed her husband. The similarity is that both women lost their husbands in the line of duty, both were appointed sheriff, and both were elected. The differences: Lily is eight years younger than Maude during that time period and she had only had two children.”
Historical facts are intertwined in this novel that also has strong female characters and an intriguing mystery. Readers get a glimpse into the 1920s-coal mining town in Appalachian Ohio as the author examines women’s rights, prohibition, and the life of a coal miner.
Erika Kehlet (21 KP) rated A Matter of Grave Concern in Books
Feb 21, 2018
I listened to this as an audiobook during my commute back and forth to work. I have to admit that Historical romance is not one of my preferred genres, and someone who enjoys romance novels might have a different opinion of this book. I was in the library one Saturday afternoon with my two girls and wanted to grab something to listen to in a hurry. The title caught my eye, and I skimmed the beginning of the blurb on the back. I read just enough to make me think it was an historical mystery, and not even paying attention to the author I took it and checked out. Driving in to work that first Monday morning after picking it up, it didn't take long to realize what I had. I might have stopped listening if I'd had another book to listen to in the car, but since it was all that i had with me, I kept going.
The story is about a young woman named Abby who's father is a surgeon at Aldersgate School of Medicine. She decides to help the college keep their students by providing a corpse for the required anatomy classes. This requires Abby to deal with a group of resurectionists, or body snatchers. Little does she know that one of the gang is not what he is pretending to be. Max Wilder has actually joined the gang of grave robbers in search of his half sister, Madeline, who has gone missing and was last seen in the company of the gang's leader, Jack Hurtsill.
This story had it's ups and downs. At times the characters thoughts and concerns seemed repetitive and almost silly. Should she or shouldn't she give in to Max. Will he or won't he tell Abby the truth. I know some of that is necessary to help build tension, but it seemed a bit much. I'm not sure how I would have felt in Abby's position as Max revealed one secret after another, instead of coming clean up front. It also seemed that after spending the first 2/3 of the book searching for Madeline, her part of the story was wrapped up in a rush. It was interesting to hear about what colleges were willing to condone to get the corpses they needed for their students to study medicine, however, and there was enough danger, suspense, and intrigue to keep my attention.
All in all, this was not a bad story, but there was too much graphic sex for my taste. If you don't mind that, or are willing to do a little skimming, then it might be worth a read.
The story is about a young woman named Abby who's father is a surgeon at Aldersgate School of Medicine. She decides to help the college keep their students by providing a corpse for the required anatomy classes. This requires Abby to deal with a group of resurectionists, or body snatchers. Little does she know that one of the gang is not what he is pretending to be. Max Wilder has actually joined the gang of grave robbers in search of his half sister, Madeline, who has gone missing and was last seen in the company of the gang's leader, Jack Hurtsill.
This story had it's ups and downs. At times the characters thoughts and concerns seemed repetitive and almost silly. Should she or shouldn't she give in to Max. Will he or won't he tell Abby the truth. I know some of that is necessary to help build tension, but it seemed a bit much. I'm not sure how I would have felt in Abby's position as Max revealed one secret after another, instead of coming clean up front. It also seemed that after spending the first 2/3 of the book searching for Madeline, her part of the story was wrapped up in a rush. It was interesting to hear about what colleges were willing to condone to get the corpses they needed for their students to study medicine, however, and there was enough danger, suspense, and intrigue to keep my attention.
All in all, this was not a bad story, but there was too much graphic sex for my taste. If you don't mind that, or are willing to do a little skimming, then it might be worth a read.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Mandore Rose in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Mandore Rose by Cyril James Morris is set in the early 1950s yet, for the most part, it feels like it could be set in modern-day. It also has a prologue from the 1700s but it takes a while for the connection to be made. This book can easily be read in a day or two.
Just Riley is a young Romany girl who is ordered by her elder to take her caravan and run away. This is not because of anything she has done. She must run in order to protect herself from the man pretending to be her uncle after her mother died just so he can steal from her. Just Riley now has to survive on her own with her horse Pixe and her spirit guide, The Bangled Lady for companions. That is until an accident at the beach puts her in contact with Big Pierre and Rhys.
Rhys teaches her how to hunt for crabs and they quickly become friends. Big Pierre owns and works on a crabbing boat and gives Just Riley some work. When Pierre takes Riley with him one day she meets the Monks and Lady Caldey on their island. The Lady agrees to have an instrument repaired for Just Riley and the two feel a bond right away. After learning to trust one another Just Riley learns that they each have a ring identical to the other. It is with these rings and a little bit of luck that they start on an adventure that may lead them to the truth about who Just Riley really is.
What I liked most was how the main character is called Just Riley. At first, I found this to be annoying and awkward, but after the reason is explained I fund it to be cute, if not a little sad as well. What I did not like was that I wish the book would have explained the difference between Romany and Gypsey. This is because on multiple occasions people in the book confuse the two and Riley seems to be insulted by that. I feel like many people (myself included) do not know the difference and would benefit from the explanation.
People who enjoy historical mysteries would enjoy this book the most. This book is appropriate for just about all readers even those in middle school. It is not too heavily historical that it is not enjoyable. I give this book a 3 out of 4 ratings. While there is not anything wrong with this book I could not give it a perfect score. The book just was not compelling to read. While it is classified as a mystery it really doesn't have a quality that made me curious about what was happening.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/mandore-rose
Just Riley is a young Romany girl who is ordered by her elder to take her caravan and run away. This is not because of anything she has done. She must run in order to protect herself from the man pretending to be her uncle after her mother died just so he can steal from her. Just Riley now has to survive on her own with her horse Pixe and her spirit guide, The Bangled Lady for companions. That is until an accident at the beach puts her in contact with Big Pierre and Rhys.
Rhys teaches her how to hunt for crabs and they quickly become friends. Big Pierre owns and works on a crabbing boat and gives Just Riley some work. When Pierre takes Riley with him one day she meets the Monks and Lady Caldey on their island. The Lady agrees to have an instrument repaired for Just Riley and the two feel a bond right away. After learning to trust one another Just Riley learns that they each have a ring identical to the other. It is with these rings and a little bit of luck that they start on an adventure that may lead them to the truth about who Just Riley really is.
What I liked most was how the main character is called Just Riley. At first, I found this to be annoying and awkward, but after the reason is explained I fund it to be cute, if not a little sad as well. What I did not like was that I wish the book would have explained the difference between Romany and Gypsey. This is because on multiple occasions people in the book confuse the two and Riley seems to be insulted by that. I feel like many people (myself included) do not know the difference and would benefit from the explanation.
People who enjoy historical mysteries would enjoy this book the most. This book is appropriate for just about all readers even those in middle school. It is not too heavily historical that it is not enjoyable. I give this book a 3 out of 4 ratings. While there is not anything wrong with this book I could not give it a perfect score. The book just was not compelling to read. While it is classified as a mystery it really doesn't have a quality that made me curious about what was happening.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/mandore-rose
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on New England folklore, Robert Eggers brings us his debut film The With.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
Handbook of Intraindividual Variability Across the Life Span: A Comprehensive Perspective
Martin J. Sliwinski, Manfred Diehl and Karen Hooker
Book
Intraindividual variability (IIV) of human development and behavior across the entire life-span is...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Valley of the Dolls in Books
May 13, 2021
A classic that doesn't stand the test of time
This is the twenty-second book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet. Let's clear those shelves and delve into that backlist!
This classic novel had been sitting on my shelves for a while, so I decided to tackle it as a part of my challenge. I still have mixed feelings about it, even writing this review a month or so later. Honestly, this book is really depressing. The beginning was interesting, and I thought I would find it very engaging, but eventually the women became reduced to annoying drug addicts whose lives revolved around their looks and men. I wasn't sure what the message was, but it wasn't one I cared for.
VALLEY OF THE DOLLS centers on three women: Anne, a young woman from a tiny town who escapes and comes to New York City; Jennifer, a beautiful woman who parlays that beauty into an acting career; and Neely, a young woman with a lovely voice who dreams of an acting and singing career. Anne finds work at a talent agency, working for Henry Bellamy, which is how she meets Jennifer. Neely is her young neighbor. At first, all three women are poor and dreaming of a better life. Over the course of the book, their fortunes change, but they do not necessarily become happier.
I was sort of horrified if this was what life was like for the rich and famous in the 40s to the 60s. So much drinking, drugs, and partying. There was such intense focus on looks--if this book was supposed to be advanced for the era, it's certainly not now! The men came across terribly, but the women were not much better. Even if they were using their bodies for power, everything just felt icky. Anne is supposed to be the model of an independent woman, as she has her own money, but she's not... I wanted to like her, but it was hard.
Overall, while I certainly found parts of this book fascinating, I cannot say I always enjoyed it. It definitely provides great historical insight into a particular era, though. I'm glad I read it--it's always interesting to see what was a classic and why at certain times. But did I like the characters and plot? Not really. 2 stars for plot, rounded to 3 stars for historical significance. (Oh and major trigger warning for the use of the "f" word in relation to queer people. Part of the times, I realize, but it became very disconcerting after a while for me.)
This classic novel had been sitting on my shelves for a while, so I decided to tackle it as a part of my challenge. I still have mixed feelings about it, even writing this review a month or so later. Honestly, this book is really depressing. The beginning was interesting, and I thought I would find it very engaging, but eventually the women became reduced to annoying drug addicts whose lives revolved around their looks and men. I wasn't sure what the message was, but it wasn't one I cared for.
VALLEY OF THE DOLLS centers on three women: Anne, a young woman from a tiny town who escapes and comes to New York City; Jennifer, a beautiful woman who parlays that beauty into an acting career; and Neely, a young woman with a lovely voice who dreams of an acting and singing career. Anne finds work at a talent agency, working for Henry Bellamy, which is how she meets Jennifer. Neely is her young neighbor. At first, all three women are poor and dreaming of a better life. Over the course of the book, their fortunes change, but they do not necessarily become happier.
I was sort of horrified if this was what life was like for the rich and famous in the 40s to the 60s. So much drinking, drugs, and partying. There was such intense focus on looks--if this book was supposed to be advanced for the era, it's certainly not now! The men came across terribly, but the women were not much better. Even if they were using their bodies for power, everything just felt icky. Anne is supposed to be the model of an independent woman, as she has her own money, but she's not... I wanted to like her, but it was hard.
Overall, while I certainly found parts of this book fascinating, I cannot say I always enjoyed it. It definitely provides great historical insight into a particular era, though. I'm glad I read it--it's always interesting to see what was a classic and why at certain times. But did I like the characters and plot? Not really. 2 stars for plot, rounded to 3 stars for historical significance. (Oh and major trigger warning for the use of the "f" word in relation to queer people. Part of the times, I realize, but it became very disconcerting after a while for me.)
Splendor™
Games
9.8
Rate It
App
** ONLINE MULTIPLAYER NOW AVAILABLE !!! ** The OFFICIAL digital adaptation of the best-selling...
BoardGames BoardgameApps GreatGames
Clair (5 KP) rated The Essex Serpent in Books
Sep 29, 2017
Purely a cover book buy, I had high hopes for this as it has won lots of awards. I’ve given it 3 stars – it took me over 100 pages before I really started to like it – I struggled to engage with the story and found my mind wandering, meaning I had to go back and reread several paragraphs again.
Set in 1893, Cora Seaborne finds herself a widow after her controlling husband dies. She and her son Francis and companion Martha leave for Colchester in Essex as she is a keen amateur naturalist and hopes to explore the area looking for fossils.
On arrival she hears rumours of the mythical Essex Serpent that has returned to the coastal parish of Aldwinter and she sets off to explore. She is introduced to William Ransome, a vicar who doesn’t believe in the Serpent but on meeting the pair find they have a connection.
There are many characters in the book, and this is for me what kept it interesting. Its meanders quite a bit but once I got used to the style, I ended up quite enjoying the story, and the historical and mystery elements were interesting.
I read it for my book club (my recommendation) and I have a feeling they may have enjoyed it more than me. I much prefer contemporary novels, but I’m glad I read this.
Set in 1893, Cora Seaborne finds herself a widow after her controlling husband dies. She and her son Francis and companion Martha leave for Colchester in Essex as she is a keen amateur naturalist and hopes to explore the area looking for fossils.
On arrival she hears rumours of the mythical Essex Serpent that has returned to the coastal parish of Aldwinter and she sets off to explore. She is introduced to William Ransome, a vicar who doesn’t believe in the Serpent but on meeting the pair find they have a connection.
There are many characters in the book, and this is for me what kept it interesting. Its meanders quite a bit but once I got used to the style, I ended up quite enjoying the story, and the historical and mystery elements were interesting.
I read it for my book club (my recommendation) and I have a feeling they may have enjoyed it more than me. I much prefer contemporary novels, but I’m glad I read this.