Search
Search results
Becoming Superman
10.0
Rate It
Book
In this dazzling memoir, the acclaimed writer behind Babylon 5, Sense8, Clint Eastwood’s...
American Marxism
Book
The seven-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, Fox News star, and radio host Mark R. Levin...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
May 14, 2024
97 of 220
Book
The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo
By Taylor Jenkins Reid
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Aging and reclusive Hollywood movie icon Evelyn Hugo is finally ready to tell the truth about her glamorous and scandalous life. But when she chooses unknown magazine reporter Monique Grant for the job, no one is more astounded than Monique herself. Why her? Why now?
Monique is not exactly on top of the world. Her husband has left her, and her professional life is going nowhere. Regardless of why Evelyn has selected her to write her biography, Monique is determined to use this opportunity to jumpstart her career.
Summoned to Evelyn's luxurious apartment, Monique listens in fascination as the actress tells her story. From making her way to Los Angeles in the 1950s to her decision to leave show business in the '80s, and, of course, the seven husbands along the way, Evelyn unspools a tale of ruthless ambition, unexpected friendship, and a great forbidden love. Monique begins to feel a very real connection to the legendary star, but as Evelyn's story near its conclusion, it becomes clear that her life intersects with Monique's own in tragic and irreversible ways.
I went into this book hoping that the hype was worth it. It certainly was you completely forget that this is a fictional character and start thinking she’s real. The tragic underlying lying story is not being able to love who you want to until it’s just to late. This was genuinely heartbreaking In places and really well written. I didn’t think it was as mind blowing as some say but it was definitely a very very interesting read. Also how self destructive some people can be especially when they want that fame in life.
Book
The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo
By Taylor Jenkins Reid
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Aging and reclusive Hollywood movie icon Evelyn Hugo is finally ready to tell the truth about her glamorous and scandalous life. But when she chooses unknown magazine reporter Monique Grant for the job, no one is more astounded than Monique herself. Why her? Why now?
Monique is not exactly on top of the world. Her husband has left her, and her professional life is going nowhere. Regardless of why Evelyn has selected her to write her biography, Monique is determined to use this opportunity to jumpstart her career.
Summoned to Evelyn's luxurious apartment, Monique listens in fascination as the actress tells her story. From making her way to Los Angeles in the 1950s to her decision to leave show business in the '80s, and, of course, the seven husbands along the way, Evelyn unspools a tale of ruthless ambition, unexpected friendship, and a great forbidden love. Monique begins to feel a very real connection to the legendary star, but as Evelyn's story near its conclusion, it becomes clear that her life intersects with Monique's own in tragic and irreversible ways.
I went into this book hoping that the hype was worth it. It certainly was you completely forget that this is a fictional character and start thinking she’s real. The tragic underlying lying story is not being able to love who you want to until it’s just to late. This was genuinely heartbreaking In places and really well written. I didn’t think it was as mind blowing as some say but it was definitely a very very interesting read. Also how self destructive some people can be especially when they want that fame in life.
Solid Gold Murder
9.0
Rate It
Book
Dee Stern’s Golden Motel-of-the-Mountains promises a tranquil getaway for outdoor lovers in the...
ClareR (6256 KP) rated Seascraper in Books
Apr 18, 2026
I absolutely loved this book, and I still can’t understand why it didn’t make the shortlist of the Booker Prize (2025).
Thomas Flett is a shanker: he takes a horse and cart to the beach at low tide and scrapes across the shore for shrimp that he sells to a local merchant for cash. It’s a hard life, and the quality of the shrimp deteriorates as the pollution affects them.
Thomas is the result of his mothers relationship at just 15 with a school teacher. He never knows this man, as he joined up and was then killed in the war to escape the disgrace of what he’d done. He lives with her in his dead grandfathers house, and his mother suffers for having kept him. She remains unmarried still, and has had few opportunities in her life - much like Thomas. Life as a shanker is hard, repetitive and dangerous. So when a Hollywood film maker turns up on their doorstep offering a lot of money for Thomas’ knowledge of the seashore and tides, Thomas is more than happy to help him.
Seascraper covers themes of identity, social class, illusion vs reality and mental health - so much in just 176 pages. It’s no wonder that Thomas is interested by the offer of the film maker: he wants to sing at his local pubs folk nights, but he has to hide his guitar and his talent from his mother. She sees spending any money or time on anything other than work a waste of money. His life is relentlessly dull and hard.
Seascraper has stayed with me long after I read it, and I will be looking for the authors other books to read.
Thomas Flett is a shanker: he takes a horse and cart to the beach at low tide and scrapes across the shore for shrimp that he sells to a local merchant for cash. It’s a hard life, and the quality of the shrimp deteriorates as the pollution affects them.
Thomas is the result of his mothers relationship at just 15 with a school teacher. He never knows this man, as he joined up and was then killed in the war to escape the disgrace of what he’d done. He lives with her in his dead grandfathers house, and his mother suffers for having kept him. She remains unmarried still, and has had few opportunities in her life - much like Thomas. Life as a shanker is hard, repetitive and dangerous. So when a Hollywood film maker turns up on their doorstep offering a lot of money for Thomas’ knowledge of the seashore and tides, Thomas is more than happy to help him.
Seascraper covers themes of identity, social class, illusion vs reality and mental health - so much in just 176 pages. It’s no wonder that Thomas is interested by the offer of the film maker: he wants to sing at his local pubs folk nights, but he has to hide his guitar and his talent from his mother. She sees spending any money or time on anything other than work a waste of money. His life is relentlessly dull and hard.
Seascraper has stayed with me long after I read it, and I will be looking for the authors other books to read.
Love's Not Welcome at the Hotel Cairo
7.0
Rate It
Book
Hughie must sell his hotel shares to save his dream. Fabian must persuade him to keep them for same...
Contemporary RomCom MM Romance Slow Burn May to December
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Between Me and You in Books
Dec 23, 2017
confusing (1 more)
repetitive
Repetitive but oddly compelling romance
When Ben Livingston and Tatum Connelly meet, they are both dreaming of success in Hollywood--Ben as a scriptwriter and Tatum as an actress. It's Ben who hits it big first, becoming Hollywood's It Guy and a Sundance favorite. But over time, his star slowly fades while Tatum rises to a stardom neither could have ever fully imagined. Along the way, the two wed, have a son, and experience a variety of ups and downs in their marriage. This includes several losses in their personal lives and slowly drifting apart. They once were incredibly close and deeply in love; can their love sustain everything that life throws at them?
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).