Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
Let me give you the background on this one. Many years ago (when La La Land was due out in the cinemas) ITV2 were showing the new series of Scorpion in their prime time drama spot, this feature was sponsored by something and quite often that's a film. For the season's entire run it was sponsored by... you guessed it... La La Land. Every episode you'd have to see up to 8 clips of the film without any real context about what it was, and worst of all there was very little deviation, you could be seeing the same clip over and over again for 20 or so episodes. I love musicals and I love Emma Stone but this pushed me so far over the edge that I swore I'd never watch it. (The same goes for Moulin Rouge which I also now have to watch) Evidently though I'm a grown ass adult and can't hold petty grudges against films so now I have to watch them... partially so I can make other people watch films they don't want to watch in an underhanded deal on Twitter.
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Kids growing up today don’t have the experience of a true arcade like some of us old folks do. Arcades as I knew them were loud (often smoke filled) establishments lined from one end to the other with all types of video games. Arcades these days reside mainly in pizza parlors with giant animatronic mice and consist mostly of ticket giving, skill-based games like skeeball and flippy coin games. Well, we now get a little bit of a nostalgic flashback as the Disney juggernaut does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet, a delightful story about friendship, self-confidence and of course arcade games.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Me Before You (Film Tie In)
Book
THE NEW YORK TIMES NUMBER 1 BESTSELLING NOVEL THAT IS LOVED AROUND THE WORLD, AND NOW NO 1...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Monster High (Monster High, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I am twenty years old and I loved this book more than I think an intelligent college student should. There were just way to many things that kept me from not turning the pages and walking away. In fact, I have only one negative thing to say about this book.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Gingerbread House in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I didn't know what to expect with The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson. I'm not really a big romance reader because I'm not really one for all that mushy stuff. In fact, I try to stay away from strictly romance books (unless they are YA). However, after reading this book, I've been swayed. I loved this book, and I think it may be my favorite adult romance that I've read. Okay, I haven't read many, but this one is definitely one of the best I've read.
Greta runs a bridal shop out of her historic home. It's just not the history that Greta loves about it, but it's also her mother's home since her childhood and the source of many great memories. So when Stephanie Harwood of Harwood Development wants to tear it down to make way for a mall, Greta is devastated. Enter Gray Daniels. Greta finds him extremely attractive. Too bad he's engaged to Stephanie. Will Greta be able to save her workplace and her mother's home? What will happen with Gray?
I think the title of this book is incredibly cute (just like the story)! I love the uniqueness of the title, yet it describes a major plot point in the story. I'm super thrilled the author decided to call her book The Gingerbread House. I must admit that the title is what definitely caught my attention.
I'm not really a fan of the cover. For me, it's just too plain. I felt like the cover is very underwhelming which is a shame because the story is so good. When I first saw the cover, I was a little put off thinking it'd be a really boring story. How wrong was I!?! I felt that maybe an actual photo/picture of the house itself on the cover would've caught my eye. All I can say is please don't judge this book by its cover. Otherwise, you'll be missing out on a little gem of a book.
The world building was fantastic as was the setting. This story is set in a small town just outside of Aspen, Colorado. Being from a small town, I tend to be critical when authors use small towns as their setting. However, Carson definitely hit the nail on the head with her descriptions of life in a small town. I liked how there was no insta-love. The characters took their time falling in love with each other. In other words, the relationship between the main character and her love interest just felt natural instead of forced.
The pacing was brilliant in this book! In fact, I breezed through this in less than 3 hours. (It would've been less than that, but I had a few things to do in the mean time). Yes, it is a short read, but it's definitely a book that holds your attention right up until the very end. Not once did I become bored while reading The Gingerbread House.
I felt that the characters were very well written to the point that they could actually be someone you know. I was feeling what Greta was feeling all throughout the book. I loved how determined she was when it came to saving her home. I loved how she seemed very real and how her emotions related well to what was going on. Gray was definitely an interesting character. I loved the moral battle he was fighting. I could actually feel how torn up inside he was about what was going on. I thought the author did an excellent job portraying Stephanie. We want to hate Stephanie, and there were times I did, but the author reminds us that Stephanie is fighting her own battle as well and has her reasons for being the way she is. I just wish we would've heard a bit more about Stephanie. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to spoil anything. I absolutely adored Adele. I loved this sweet woman and just wanted to hug her every time she was mentioned in the book.
The dialogue was perfect and fit each scene perfect. The dialogue between the characters was interesting to read and never felt forced or dull. Even though this is an adult book, there are no swear words and no sexual situations which I was extremely happy about, so if you're after a clean romance adult book, this is perfect.
Overall, I definitely enjoyed reading The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson. I would've liked to hear more about Stephanie and the mall (again, not going into detail as not to ruin anything), but those are just little minor annoyances. I enjoyed what a sweet, fun and cute read this was. Almost everything about this book was written perfectly. One thing I also loved a lot was how tastefully this book was written.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 18+ (or any age really as it's a really clean read) who is after a light and sweet romantic read.
The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson gets a 4.75 out of 5 from me.
~~~
I'd like to thank the author for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
I didn't know what to expect with The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson. I'm not really a big romance reader because I'm not really one for all that mushy stuff. In fact, I try to stay away from strictly romance books (unless they are YA). However, after reading this book, I've been swayed. I loved this book, and I think it may be my favorite adult romance that I've read. Okay, I haven't read many, but this one is definitely one of the best I've read.
Greta runs a bridal shop out of her historic home. It's just not the history that Greta loves about it, but it's also her mother's home since her childhood and the source of many great memories. So when Stephanie Harwood of Harwood Development wants to tear it down to make way for a mall, Greta is devastated. Enter Gray Daniels. Greta finds him extremely attractive. Too bad he's engaged to Stephanie. Will Greta be able to save her workplace and her mother's home? What will happen with Gray?
I think the title of this book is incredibly cute (just like the story)! I love the uniqueness of the title, yet it describes a major plot point in the story. I'm super thrilled the author decided to call her book The Gingerbread House. I must admit that the title is what definitely caught my attention.
I'm not really a fan of the cover. For me, it's just too plain. I felt like the cover is very underwhelming which is a shame because the story is so good. When I first saw the cover, I was a little put off thinking it'd be a really boring story. How wrong was I!?! I felt that maybe an actual photo/picture of the house itself on the cover would've caught my eye. All I can say is please don't judge this book by its cover. Otherwise, you'll be missing out on a little gem of a book.
The world building was fantastic as was the setting. This story is set in a small town just outside of Aspen, Colorado. Being from a small town, I tend to be critical when authors use small towns as their setting. However, Carson definitely hit the nail on the head with her descriptions of life in a small town. I liked how there was no insta-love. The characters took their time falling in love with each other. In other words, the relationship between the main character and her love interest just felt natural instead of forced.
The pacing was brilliant in this book! In fact, I breezed through this in less than 3 hours. (It would've been less than that, but I had a few things to do in the mean time). Yes, it is a short read, but it's definitely a book that holds your attention right up until the very end. Not once did I become bored while reading The Gingerbread House.
I felt that the characters were very well written to the point that they could actually be someone you know. I was feeling what Greta was feeling all throughout the book. I loved how determined she was when it came to saving her home. I loved how she seemed very real and how her emotions related well to what was going on. Gray was definitely an interesting character. I loved the moral battle he was fighting. I could actually feel how torn up inside he was about what was going on. I thought the author did an excellent job portraying Stephanie. We want to hate Stephanie, and there were times I did, but the author reminds us that Stephanie is fighting her own battle as well and has her reasons for being the way she is. I just wish we would've heard a bit more about Stephanie. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to spoil anything. I absolutely adored Adele. I loved this sweet woman and just wanted to hug her every time she was mentioned in the book.
The dialogue was perfect and fit each scene perfect. The dialogue between the characters was interesting to read and never felt forced or dull. Even though this is an adult book, there are no swear words and no sexual situations which I was extremely happy about, so if you're after a clean romance adult book, this is perfect.
Overall, I definitely enjoyed reading The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson. I would've liked to hear more about Stephanie and the mall (again, not going into detail as not to ruin anything), but those are just little minor annoyances. I enjoyed what a sweet, fun and cute read this was. Almost everything about this book was written perfectly. One thing I also loved a lot was how tastefully this book was written.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 18+ (or any age really as it's a really clean read) who is after a light and sweet romantic read.
The Gingerbread House by Nell Carson gets a 4.75 out of 5 from me.
~~~
I'd like to thank the author for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, <i>Small Great Thing</i>s is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are <s>intentionally</s> oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.