Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Peter Parker, (Andrew Garfield), has become interesting to say the least. He is juggling the delicate and complex balance of being Spider-man as well as a high school senior and boyfriend to Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
Curtis Sittenfeld's engaging novel looks at Hillary Rodham's life through this prism: what if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? In 1971, as Hillary Rodham graduates from Wellesley, she delivers a commencement speech that gains national prominence. She heads to Yale Law school--an intelligent woman, filled with the desire to help those in need. It is there she meets Bill Clinton, a fellow law student. The connection between the two is instant--for the first time, Hillary feels she has found someone who appreciates her both emotionally and physically. In real life, Hillary and Bill head to Arkansas. He proposes three times, and she finally accepts, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
Merissa (11805 KP) rated Left (Reflections #12) in Books
May 23, 2023
Left is about Jess, simple as that. We've had Isaac's side of the story in Lost, so I was happy to read Jess' side, even though I'm not her biggest fan.
Jess lost her memories when Oblivion got his hands on her. Since then, she has had to deal with other people's memories of her, trying to fit her back into a box that she no longer remembers. She reacted by pushing those that knew her away, and going with Wyatt on an 'adventure'.
Now, I've already said that I'm not her biggest fan. I thought she came across as incredibly self-centred, petty and selfish. The best bit about this book is when Jess realised that for herself! To acknowledge your faults takes courage. To try and better yourself is hard work, but Jess is prepared to try her best. Wyatt - there's more to this playboy than meets the eye, but I just couldn't warm to him. I won't give spoilers, but I will say that I'm not disappointed with how his story turned out.
There is an awful lot of information in this book, from descriptions of their surroundings to the history of the Graves line, to politics within the pack. It does feel a bit heavy during these parts, but stick with it as there is information in there that you need to know.
This is an exceptional series that I have thoroughly enjoyed. I am wondering where Dean will take it next! For this book as a whole, I will give it 4-stars. However, for the ending, that is definitely 5-stars! This is part of a series, so I would definitely recommend that you start from the beginning and immerse yourself in this world.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 24, 2016
Jess lost her memories when Oblivion got his hands on her. Since then, she has had to deal with other people's memories of her, trying to fit her back into a box that she no longer remembers. She reacted by pushing those that knew her away, and going with Wyatt on an 'adventure'.
Now, I've already said that I'm not her biggest fan. I thought she came across as incredibly self-centred, petty and selfish. The best bit about this book is when Jess realised that for herself! To acknowledge your faults takes courage. To try and better yourself is hard work, but Jess is prepared to try her best. Wyatt - there's more to this playboy than meets the eye, but I just couldn't warm to him. I won't give spoilers, but I will say that I'm not disappointed with how his story turned out.
There is an awful lot of information in this book, from descriptions of their surroundings to the history of the Graves line, to politics within the pack. It does feel a bit heavy during these parts, but stick with it as there is information in there that you need to know.
This is an exceptional series that I have thoroughly enjoyed. I am wondering where Dean will take it next! For this book as a whole, I will give it 4-stars. However, for the ending, that is definitely 5-stars! This is part of a series, so I would definitely recommend that you start from the beginning and immerse yourself in this world.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Feb 24, 2016
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Stork Mountain in Books
May 25, 2017
Captivating
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Bulgarian-born, short storywriter Miroslav Penkov has turned to full-length novels with this captivating book, Stork Mountain. Set in the Bulgarian Strandja Mountains on the border of Turkey, he explores religion, mythology, the past and the present in a society affected by long-term political unrest.
The narrator, a young man who remains nameless throughout, relocated to the United States of America as a child after the fall of Communism. Now he returns to his home country to find his grandfather, an elderly man he lost contact with three years ago. However his real motive is purely for self gain: to sell his section of the family land in order to pay off student loans and his rising debt.
Naturally, things do not go according to plan. The protagonist finds his grandfather hiding in the village of Klisura, a place divided between the Christians and the Muslims. He also discovers that there is no longer any land for him to sell, making his journey fairly pointless. Instead of returning to the Western world, he stays in his grandfather’s house and, very slowly, begins to learn the truth about his family’s past, the man his grandfather once was, and the superstitious pagan activities still affecting some of the village’s inhabitants today.
Stork Mountain is full of the history, folklore and mythology of a little known about European country. Although ultimately a contemporary novel, there is a lot to learn about events that led up to southern Bulgaria’s current condition. As well as being informative, Penkov plays with his readers’ hearts by including a Romeo and Juliet-esque relationship between the narrator and a Muslim girl, and also reveals a similar affair between a younger Grandfather and the girl of his dreams.
Books containing politics are often reserved for those with particular interest in the topic, however Stork Mountain is suitable for a much larger audience. The inclusion of Bulgarian folklore adds a dark fairytale-like quality to the story; and the romance, something for the reader to latch onto.
On reading the blurb I jumped to the conclusion that this book would be boring. I was wrong. Whereas stories with similar themes can be hard going, Stork Mountain was fast paced and easy to read. There were a few confusions about who was talking or whether the narrative was about the past or the future, but these issues may be something that is improved upon as the author finds his groove in full-length novels.
Even if, like me, you have prejudged this book to be boring, I urge you to give it a go. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised. Miroslav Penkov definitely has a future in the world of literature.
Bulgarian-born, short storywriter Miroslav Penkov has turned to full-length novels with this captivating book, Stork Mountain. Set in the Bulgarian Strandja Mountains on the border of Turkey, he explores religion, mythology, the past and the present in a society affected by long-term political unrest.
The narrator, a young man who remains nameless throughout, relocated to the United States of America as a child after the fall of Communism. Now he returns to his home country to find his grandfather, an elderly man he lost contact with three years ago. However his real motive is purely for self gain: to sell his section of the family land in order to pay off student loans and his rising debt.
Naturally, things do not go according to plan. The protagonist finds his grandfather hiding in the village of Klisura, a place divided between the Christians and the Muslims. He also discovers that there is no longer any land for him to sell, making his journey fairly pointless. Instead of returning to the Western world, he stays in his grandfather’s house and, very slowly, begins to learn the truth about his family’s past, the man his grandfather once was, and the superstitious pagan activities still affecting some of the village’s inhabitants today.
Stork Mountain is full of the history, folklore and mythology of a little known about European country. Although ultimately a contemporary novel, there is a lot to learn about events that led up to southern Bulgaria’s current condition. As well as being informative, Penkov plays with his readers’ hearts by including a Romeo and Juliet-esque relationship between the narrator and a Muslim girl, and also reveals a similar affair between a younger Grandfather and the girl of his dreams.
Books containing politics are often reserved for those with particular interest in the topic, however Stork Mountain is suitable for a much larger audience. The inclusion of Bulgarian folklore adds a dark fairytale-like quality to the story; and the romance, something for the reader to latch onto.
On reading the blurb I jumped to the conclusion that this book would be boring. I was wrong. Whereas stories with similar themes can be hard going, Stork Mountain was fast paced and easy to read. There were a few confusions about who was talking or whether the narrative was about the past or the future, but these issues may be something that is improved upon as the author finds his groove in full-length novels.
Even if, like me, you have prejudged this book to be boring, I urge you to give it a go. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised. Miroslav Penkov definitely has a future in the world of literature.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I first heard about this movie, I was expecting the worst. I’ve been exposed to my fair share of B-type horror movies (I was raised on “Critters,” “Ghoulies,” “Killer Clowns from Outerspace,” and everything else one can imagine as a kid). I laughed at the SyFy channel’s monster movie line-up and was sick unto death of zombie movies. That said, I wasn’t entirely excited for this movie’s premier. My boyfriend, however, was chomping at the bit. He adores B-type
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.