Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
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”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Drive My Car (2021) in Movies
Mar 19, 2022
Raw, Pure and Honest
If I’m being honest, I purposely pushed my Oscar “homework assignment” of viewing DRIVE MY CAR to the end of the list for I saw that it was a 3 Hour Japanese Film that is a meditation on loss, grief, anger and regret set against the backdrop of a production of Chekov’s Uncle Vanya. I was ready to buckle-in for an arty “Art House” film that is not as good as the “artists” recommending it would have you believe.
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The New PSYCHOLOGY
10.0
Rate It
Book
From the mind of genius to the suicide bombers of today’s news, from science to sex, understanding...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where to begin with my review? I guess I should start out by being completely honest and mentioning that I did not buy Cinder for myself, and I likely never would have either. After begging me to read it for a while, my best friend ended up buying me a copy for Christmas in the hope that I would give it a go. And to be fair to her, I did. Four times to be precise. The first three times I ended up giving up before chapter four. However, don't let that deter you. On my fourth attempt, I loved it! The only reason I can think of as to why I struggled the other times was because I was in a serious book hangover from another story. So I was a little reluctant to start a new story with characters I wasn't invested in yet, and a story I already knew. Or at least, I thought I did.
So let's start with the plot. Cinder is a retelling of Cinderella. Perhaps another reason for my lack of interest in the beginning as I've never really been a huge fan of that particular princess. What I do enjoy is a fresh twist on a well known story, so I should have known I would enjoy it if I gave it a chance. Like Cinderella, Cinder follows the story of a young girl who lives with her step-mother, and her two step-sisters, no love lost between them. In both, the girl leads a tough, though somewhat mundane life, right up until she meets her prince, and then things start to look up. Blah, blah, blah... We all know the story right? No. Marissa Meyer gives the traditional tale a new spin, and it was like reading the story for the first time. Because of this, I easily finished the story over one (busy) weekend. The story contained just the right mix of adventure, romance, and sci-fi to keep me hooked, even if -in places- the story seemed to drag a little. This was more than made up for with the explosive ending though. The story ends with enough unresolved conflict to keep you wanting more... And if you're anything like me, thankfully you don't have to wait months for the next one (It's called Scarlet BTW). Another great part of this story was the world building and backstory. At one point, the events of WW4 are mentioned, giving us a little insight as to how the world we know morphed into the one in the story. This also prevented the world from becoming too complicated when other races (The Lunars) are introduced, and helped blend the backstories of both races nicely. Lunars are the genetically mutated humans that live on the moon (Luna), and they have the ability to use a power known as "Glamour" to influence other's minds and make them see and believe what they want them to. This particular part impressed me as it was a clever way of introducing magic in an otherwise "normal" world. Because I'm a sucker for a bit of magic. The only real problem I had with this story was that the plot was somewhat predictable at times... For example, pretty much as soon as it was mentioned that there was once a princess who -if she was still alive- could usurp the Queen of the Lunars and restore peace to the two worlds... It was obvious that it was going to end up being Cinder. (This is confirmed at the end of the book).
Now, onto the characters! Meet our protagonist, Linh Cinder. Cinder is a sixteen-year-old living in New Beijing with her evil Step-mother and two step-sisters... But that's pretty much where the similarities with her and the traditional Cinderella end. Not only is our protagonist more than just a pretty face with a kind heart, she is a badass! Throughout the story she impressed me with her attitude, intelligence, and ability to call people out on their bullshit. Fair enough she came across a little whiny at times, but this can be overlooked when you remember she is pretty much still a child who has had a pretty rough life. Unable to remember her life before a crash that claimed the lives of her family, she was adopted by a man who soon died, leaving her at the mercy of his wife, who was not a fan of Cinder. Why, you ask? Well, Cinder is a cyborg, and that is unforgivable and clearly Cinder's fault... According to the step mother at least. Still, despite being shunned by most people who knew the truth about her, Cinder still manages to be a likable character. Yeah she has her flaws, but that's what I liked about her. She's realistic. She's embarrassed by the fact she is a cyborg, especially when she meets the handsome Prince Kai. It was frustrating at times to read scenes with these two, mainly because Cinder was reluctant to tell Kai about her being a cyborg, and it built a wall between them. I mean, I can see where she's coming from. It would be a nice change to just be a normal girl to someone after years of being told she was less. BUT DAMN GIRL! KAI IS A CINNAMON ROLL AND WOULD LOVE YOU EITHER WAY!!!
*Clears throat* Anyway, moving on... Now we can talk about Kai. Handsome, charming, clueless, Prince Kai. We meet Kai pretty early on in the story (first chapter in fact) and from the moment we meet him, we know he and Cinder are destined. Or at least I hope so... I haven't read the second book yet! The only child of the emperor, Kai will someday rule the Eastern Commonwealth. Unfortunately that day comes all too soon when his father contracts the plague and soon after dies, leaving the job to the young Prince. If I'm being completely honest, I was expecting him to crash and burn at some point, but I was pleasantly surprised when he managed to hack it, even going as far as to stand up to the Lunar Queen- A megabitch we will discuss later- despite the fact she could start a war that would cause chaos for the Earthlings. His character development was fun to read. He started as a charismatic prince with a rebellious streak, and by the end of the book he was an Emperor loyal to his people and smarter than he lets on. I was a little disappointed in his reaction to finding out Cinder was a cyborg (and a Lunar), but under the circumstances, he can be forgiven. I'm quite interested in how the rest of Emperor Kai's story is going to play out, especially as he seemed to have something planned at the end of the first book, but I have yet to see if my suspicions are correct about him.
Now time to talk about our main antagonist, Queen Levana AKA The Megabitch. As far as antagonists go, she isn't the most evil I've met, but she is one of the more interesting. Queen of the Lunars, she is a cold, flawless, evil lady, who hates technology, and is infamous for using her glamour to hide her true face. Her motives seem pretty simple. She wants to rule. As Queen of the Lunars, she can do this by marriage, or she can take it by force. She doesn't really seem to care which way she goes about it, but she does suggest a marriage alliance with Prince/Emperor Kai Puh-lease. He and Cinder are OTP. (Also, I have to praise Meyer for the lack of a love triangle here, even though it would have been easy enough to include one. Bless you, child!) For the majority of the story she seems to be cool and in control, which is worrying for those of us rooting for the heroes, but at the Ball Naturally Cinder manages to crack the flawless facade and give us a little insight to the Queen's weakness Score 1 for Cinder! I have a feeling though that the next time we see the Queen, she is going to up her game and really give our heroes some problems, but we shall see!
Overall, I really enjoyed Cinder and I'm glad that I gave it another go. I should really start listening when my friend suggests books to me. It was an entertaining, frustrating, and even heart-breaking story at times, but I loved it. Marissa Meyer has definitely earned another fan, and I cannot wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO MY SHIP. The book had a few issues of course, but not enough that I would hesitate to read the next book... Hopefully I'll get around to it soon! In the mean time, anyone debating reading Cinder, you should definitely do it! 100%. And if anyone -like me- is struggling to get into it... Stick at it! I swear it's worth it in the end!
So let's start with the plot. Cinder is a retelling of Cinderella. Perhaps another reason for my lack of interest in the beginning as I've never really been a huge fan of that particular princess. What I do enjoy is a fresh twist on a well known story, so I should have known I would enjoy it if I gave it a chance. Like Cinderella, Cinder follows the story of a young girl who lives with her step-mother, and her two step-sisters, no love lost between them. In both, the girl leads a tough, though somewhat mundane life, right up until she meets her prince, and then things start to look up. Blah, blah, blah... We all know the story right? No. Marissa Meyer gives the traditional tale a new spin, and it was like reading the story for the first time. Because of this, I easily finished the story over one (busy) weekend. The story contained just the right mix of adventure, romance, and sci-fi to keep me hooked, even if -in places- the story seemed to drag a little. This was more than made up for with the explosive ending though. The story ends with enough unresolved conflict to keep you wanting more... And if you're anything like me, thankfully you don't have to wait months for the next one (It's called Scarlet BTW). Another great part of this story was the world building and backstory. At one point, the events of WW4 are mentioned, giving us a little insight as to how the world we know morphed into the one in the story. This also prevented the world from becoming too complicated when other races (The Lunars) are introduced, and helped blend the backstories of both races nicely. Lunars are the genetically mutated humans that live on the moon (Luna), and they have the ability to use a power known as "Glamour" to influence other's minds and make them see and believe what they want them to. This particular part impressed me as it was a clever way of introducing magic in an otherwise "normal" world. Because I'm a sucker for a bit of magic. The only real problem I had with this story was that the plot was somewhat predictable at times... For example, pretty much as soon as it was mentioned that there was once a princess who -if she was still alive- could usurp the Queen of the Lunars and restore peace to the two worlds... It was obvious that it was going to end up being Cinder. (This is confirmed at the end of the book).
Now, onto the characters! Meet our protagonist, Linh Cinder. Cinder is a sixteen-year-old living in New Beijing with her evil Step-mother and two step-sisters... But that's pretty much where the similarities with her and the traditional Cinderella end. Not only is our protagonist more than just a pretty face with a kind heart, she is a badass! Throughout the story she impressed me with her attitude, intelligence, and ability to call people out on their bullshit. Fair enough she came across a little whiny at times, but this can be overlooked when you remember she is pretty much still a child who has had a pretty rough life. Unable to remember her life before a crash that claimed the lives of her family, she was adopted by a man who soon died, leaving her at the mercy of his wife, who was not a fan of Cinder. Why, you ask? Well, Cinder is a cyborg, and that is unforgivable and clearly Cinder's fault... According to the step mother at least. Still, despite being shunned by most people who knew the truth about her, Cinder still manages to be a likable character. Yeah she has her flaws, but that's what I liked about her. She's realistic. She's embarrassed by the fact she is a cyborg, especially when she meets the handsome Prince Kai. It was frustrating at times to read scenes with these two, mainly because Cinder was reluctant to tell Kai about her being a cyborg, and it built a wall between them. I mean, I can see where she's coming from. It would be a nice change to just be a normal girl to someone after years of being told she was less. BUT DAMN GIRL! KAI IS A CINNAMON ROLL AND WOULD LOVE YOU EITHER WAY!!!
*Clears throat* Anyway, moving on... Now we can talk about Kai. Handsome, charming, clueless, Prince Kai. We meet Kai pretty early on in the story (first chapter in fact) and from the moment we meet him, we know he and Cinder are destined. Or at least I hope so... I haven't read the second book yet! The only child of the emperor, Kai will someday rule the Eastern Commonwealth. Unfortunately that day comes all too soon when his father contracts the plague and soon after dies, leaving the job to the young Prince. If I'm being completely honest, I was expecting him to crash and burn at some point, but I was pleasantly surprised when he managed to hack it, even going as far as to stand up to the Lunar Queen- A megabitch we will discuss later- despite the fact she could start a war that would cause chaos for the Earthlings. His character development was fun to read. He started as a charismatic prince with a rebellious streak, and by the end of the book he was an Emperor loyal to his people and smarter than he lets on. I was a little disappointed in his reaction to finding out Cinder was a cyborg (and a Lunar), but under the circumstances, he can be forgiven. I'm quite interested in how the rest of Emperor Kai's story is going to play out, especially as he seemed to have something planned at the end of the first book, but I have yet to see if my suspicions are correct about him.
Now time to talk about our main antagonist, Queen Levana AKA The Megabitch. As far as antagonists go, she isn't the most evil I've met, but she is one of the more interesting. Queen of the Lunars, she is a cold, flawless, evil lady, who hates technology, and is infamous for using her glamour to hide her true face. Her motives seem pretty simple. She wants to rule. As Queen of the Lunars, she can do this by marriage, or she can take it by force. She doesn't really seem to care which way she goes about it, but she does suggest a marriage alliance with Prince/Emperor Kai Puh-lease. He and Cinder are OTP. (Also, I have to praise Meyer for the lack of a love triangle here, even though it would have been easy enough to include one. Bless you, child!) For the majority of the story she seems to be cool and in control, which is worrying for those of us rooting for the heroes, but at the Ball Naturally Cinder manages to crack the flawless facade and give us a little insight to the Queen's weakness Score 1 for Cinder! I have a feeling though that the next time we see the Queen, she is going to up her game and really give our heroes some problems, but we shall see!
Overall, I really enjoyed Cinder and I'm glad that I gave it another go. I should really start listening when my friend suggests books to me. It was an entertaining, frustrating, and even heart-breaking story at times, but I loved it. Marissa Meyer has definitely earned another fan, and I cannot wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO MY SHIP. The book had a few issues of course, but not enough that I would hesitate to read the next book... Hopefully I'll get around to it soon! In the mean time, anyone debating reading Cinder, you should definitely do it! 100%. And if anyone -like me- is struggling to get into it... Stick at it! I swear it's worth it in the end!
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
A is for Artful
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with another of Tim Burton’s films, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland strays significantly from the original material. And, in a vein similar to Sleepy Hollow, decapitation is a much-discussed topic.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Uncertain Magic in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Uncertain Magic by Laura Kinsale
Genre: Adult Historical romance
ISBN: 9781402237027
Published: May 4th 2010 by Sourcebooks Casablanca (first published March 2nd 1987)
Rating: 5
Roddy has a "gift"—or as she thinks of it, a curse—that allows her to hear the mind and feel the emotions of every human and animal on earth. Because of this, and her family history, she knows she will never be married, never have her own family… because what man wants every single thought and emotion on display for his wife? Past failed marriages in the family have shown her that her happiness is a hopeless cause… until she meets one man whom she does not have access to his thoughts and feelings. So Roddy takes things into her own hands. She realizes a little too late what kind of man she's gotten interested in her: Lord Iveragh. The Devil Earl of Ireland.
She carries out her plan, however, and he seems to like her enough to marry her. But The Devil Earl is hiding things from her… and possibly himself. Roddy finds that she can help him… but it will require more than she may be willing to give. If she doesn't, though, she will loose him forever… and maybe loose herself, too.
I loved Uncertain Magic. I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading it. It was certainly a romance, and a very good one at that. But it was so much more than a romance novel: It was a clever blend of romance, adventure, historical events, family secrets, and Gaelic magic. The plot incorporated a rebellion in Ireland, smuggling, murder, and magic. There were horse races, escaping soldiers, and midnight balls with the dead.
The relationship between Roddy and Faelan (Lord Iveragh) started off a little random: a chance meeting, Roddy saving his horse from a heart attack, her pretending to be a stable boy and bragging on his employer (herself, of course) and Faelan seeing through it and embarrassing her. As it continued, I was a little surprised at the speed it progressed: They were married by chapter five. But them being married though the book was such an important aspect, that I understood it later. Of course, no marriage is perfect, and many romances are victims of happyland syndrome, where their relationship is so perfect that it's almost Holy.
Not this one.
There were misunderstandings, tears, heartbreak, scandals, possible affairs, redemption, and healing. And plenty of love-making.
With that said: the characters were great. Roddy was sweet and soft, but she had her spunk and I liked her immediately (especially when she took out a rude stableboy with a single kick). Faelan was, as his nickname describes him, a devil—but he was good that way. He was a little obnoxious, he had his sarcastic moments, and he certainly had his pride. He's the kind of dark secretive hero that everyone looks for… but with a touch of madness—or maybe magic—to make him even more mysterious. I love Roddy, I adore Faelan, and his mother (let's just say she never. shuts. up.) makes me laugh… the characters in this story are gems.
Just as I didn't expect the twisting exciting plot, I didn't expect the writing to be so good. It felt great to read, and the dialogue was easy to speak and felt natural. It flowed well, and was descriptive and lyrical. I liked the way Kinsale described Roddy experiencing everyone else's thoughts and emotions, and I liked the way she didn't over-describe everything—every little facial expression, every little movement—leaving out some for your imagination, but added enough description to allow you to see everything.
There were disappearing faeries and blind men who could see (try figuring that one out!) and missing chunks of time… all tied up beautifully at the end. Although it was, at first, a little confusing to figure out what had just happened on the last few pages, I loved the ending. There wasn't quite enough closure, but it didn't need to be closed: it was more like an opening for their new life together. After reading it, you know what will happen… so it doesn't need to be said.
This is probably one of my favorite books I've read this year, and it demands a re-read in the future.
Content/Recommendation: Some sex, mild language. Ages 18+
Review copyright Haley Mathiot 2010. Review copy supplied by publisher.
Genre: Adult Historical romance
ISBN: 9781402237027
Published: May 4th 2010 by Sourcebooks Casablanca (first published March 2nd 1987)
Rating: 5
Roddy has a "gift"—or as she thinks of it, a curse—that allows her to hear the mind and feel the emotions of every human and animal on earth. Because of this, and her family history, she knows she will never be married, never have her own family… because what man wants every single thought and emotion on display for his wife? Past failed marriages in the family have shown her that her happiness is a hopeless cause… until she meets one man whom she does not have access to his thoughts and feelings. So Roddy takes things into her own hands. She realizes a little too late what kind of man she's gotten interested in her: Lord Iveragh. The Devil Earl of Ireland.
She carries out her plan, however, and he seems to like her enough to marry her. But The Devil Earl is hiding things from her… and possibly himself. Roddy finds that she can help him… but it will require more than she may be willing to give. If she doesn't, though, she will loose him forever… and maybe loose herself, too.
I loved Uncertain Magic. I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading it. It was certainly a romance, and a very good one at that. But it was so much more than a romance novel: It was a clever blend of romance, adventure, historical events, family secrets, and Gaelic magic. The plot incorporated a rebellion in Ireland, smuggling, murder, and magic. There were horse races, escaping soldiers, and midnight balls with the dead.
The relationship between Roddy and Faelan (Lord Iveragh) started off a little random: a chance meeting, Roddy saving his horse from a heart attack, her pretending to be a stable boy and bragging on his employer (herself, of course) and Faelan seeing through it and embarrassing her. As it continued, I was a little surprised at the speed it progressed: They were married by chapter five. But them being married though the book was such an important aspect, that I understood it later. Of course, no marriage is perfect, and many romances are victims of happyland syndrome, where their relationship is so perfect that it's almost Holy.
Not this one.
There were misunderstandings, tears, heartbreak, scandals, possible affairs, redemption, and healing. And plenty of love-making.
With that said: the characters were great. Roddy was sweet and soft, but she had her spunk and I liked her immediately (especially when she took out a rude stableboy with a single kick). Faelan was, as his nickname describes him, a devil—but he was good that way. He was a little obnoxious, he had his sarcastic moments, and he certainly had his pride. He's the kind of dark secretive hero that everyone looks for… but with a touch of madness—or maybe magic—to make him even more mysterious. I love Roddy, I adore Faelan, and his mother (let's just say she never. shuts. up.) makes me laugh… the characters in this story are gems.
Just as I didn't expect the twisting exciting plot, I didn't expect the writing to be so good. It felt great to read, and the dialogue was easy to speak and felt natural. It flowed well, and was descriptive and lyrical. I liked the way Kinsale described Roddy experiencing everyone else's thoughts and emotions, and I liked the way she didn't over-describe everything—every little facial expression, every little movement—leaving out some for your imagination, but added enough description to allow you to see everything.
There were disappearing faeries and blind men who could see (try figuring that one out!) and missing chunks of time… all tied up beautifully at the end. Although it was, at first, a little confusing to figure out what had just happened on the last few pages, I loved the ending. There wasn't quite enough closure, but it didn't need to be closed: it was more like an opening for their new life together. After reading it, you know what will happen… so it doesn't need to be said.
This is probably one of my favorite books I've read this year, and it demands a re-read in the future.
Content/Recommendation: Some sex, mild language. Ages 18+
Review copyright Haley Mathiot 2010. Review copy supplied by publisher.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Priory of the Orange Tree in Books
May 3, 2019
AMAZING epic fantasy.
Holy COW, you guys. I keep saying “I haven’t read much epic fantasy lately” and “I don’t have time to read such long books/series” but I made an exception for Priory, and I’m SO glad I did. Just WOW.
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Rob Bell's book wins on pathos and good intentions, but not on solid argumentation or exegesis. He has a heart for the lost and the suffering, which is admirable. But he has to turn the Bible into theological silly putty to make his case.
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?
There are a few major errors in Love Wins, which leads to his making other more minor mistakes. The first error is giving precedence to certain biblical themes (to the exclusion of others) over clear and specific biblical teaching. Bell makes much of themes like restoration in Scripture, but ignores themes of final punishment. By dwelling on those themes, he can transition to reading them into texts where they don't belong without being found out by biblical illiterates, such as Jesus' claim that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on the day of judgement than cities which rejected the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Instead of reading this in its obvious sense-- that there are degrees of punishment on the final day and those who reject direct revelation of Jesus will suffer most-- he understands Jesus to be saying that there is a great deal of hope for Sodom and Gomorrah's salvation-- that their punishment was corrective instead of destructive. Even though he doesn't get anywhere close to proving his case (certainly only God knows whether or not some in Sodom will be saved, but the story of Abraham bargaining would suggest otherwise), he seems to fall back on the emotionally-driven claim that God saving everyone is a "better story" than damning some and saving others.
On his overuse of the word "story," it is one example where Bell is obnoxiously post-modern and emergent. He uses the word "story/stories" in his short book 138 times. For a book of around 200 pages, large font, and constantly skipped lines/single words on their own lines*, that's an impressive display of post-modernism.
Another major error is that he conflates a strong exclusivism with eternal conscious punishment which has the effect that when he attacks one, he is in effect attacking the other, making his job easier. In addition, he ignores annihilationism as an alternative to eternal conscious torment, which also strengthens the emotional pull of his position, since it is contrasted with an eternal conscious punishment where God damns people for never being able to hear the name of Jesus. (note: while I am annoyed at Bell's misrepresentations of eternal conscious torment, I am myself an annihilationist)
Bell explains that God will eventually win everyone over, but it must be of their accord. However, he doesn't explain how it is that everyone will be saved of their own free will. For emotional effect, Bell criticizes the eternal conscious hell camp with having a God that would turn his back on people in hell who are repenting and turning to God. Of course, this assumes that sinners turn to God on their own instead of by His grace. Bell here appears to be a Pelagian, or else doesn't know enough about soteriology to make such distinctions (a terrifying prospect for a Pastor). In any case, this is another example where he is misrepresenting eternal conscious hell proponents (the first I mentioned was when he claimed they were all strict exclusivists), which makes his book far harder to take seriously.
One strange and interesting point that Rob Bell makes comes from making the afterlife analogous to the parable of the prodigal son. He claims that hell is not being cast out of "the party," (despite Jesus' parable about the marriage supper being like a party where people are cast out of) but being at the party but not enjoying it. "Hell is being at the party," Bell claims. The message to take from that is never go to one of Rob Bell's parties.
*Bell's book is filled with skipped lines and one word sentences sitting on their own lines. I suppose this is done for dramatic effect-- indicating places where Bell would pause if this were one of his Nooma videos. However, it tends to just look irritating and faux artsy. I mostly listened to the book on Kindle's text-to-speech feature, and I could still tell when he was doing it. Like,
You put a series of short sentences on their own lines to make a point?
Really?
You do that?
And it's repetitive?
Extremely?
And annoying?