Search
Search results
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jun 10, 2020 (Updated Jun 10, 2020)
Combat Is Fluid, Weighty And Satisfying. (2 more)
The Protagonists Are Well Thought Out.
I Can't Wait For The Next Part.
Side missions Are Tedious And Boring (2 more)
The Middle Is A Slog To Go Through,
Parts Of The Story Needed Removing
A Classic Reborn.
I understand the impact FFVII has had on both video game narratives, and storytelling itself. It remains a staple mark on video games, and as such is held so highly amongst developers as the standard of how great a narrative can be, and its hard to argue. I haven't even played the original 1997 release, but I know the story beats and main moments. Its an incredible journey, with fascinating characters, rolled into moments of twists and turns. Once a remake was announced, it obviously was met with massive anticipation, and worrying doubt. Could you possibly pull off a remake of classic and make fans old and new fall in love all over again?
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Flightless Falcon in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Flightless Falcon Still Glides Pretty Well
Flightless Falcon is a light DAW fantasy by Mickey Zucker Reichert that first came out in paperback in July of 2001. Set in your typical fantasy land – lightly coated in magic but sans any fantastical creatures such as dragons, elves, dwarves, and the like – it follows the sad, luckless exploits of an ex-miner named Tamison made useless after a cave in kills his father and brother and leaves him trapped deep in the mine for a few days.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.
Afterwards, with a debilitating fear of both the dark and being underground, he’s unable to continue as a miner, yet too unskilled to get any other job. As such, he and his family live in dirt poverty for a decade or so until he finally decides to try stealing what they need instead of earning the money to buy it. Unfortunately he’s just as horrible at this as anything else he tries and ends up in jail for two years.
When he finally gets out, his family’s disappeared, so he adopts a stray dog and lives on the streets for a while. Then one day a guard finds him and tells him, “Hey, I know where your family is, and it’s bad, man, we should go save ’em.” So Tamison saves a fortune teller from some different guards, just for good measure, and the three of them go off to get his family back.
The plot evolves from there – I won’t go into much greater detail because I don’t want to give anything away. And while it’s an entertaining read, it does have its share of snags, though not often or strong enough to derail the overall experience. Still, might was well talk about ’em.
The majority of these moments occur due to the protagonist himself; Tamison’s constant suffering and depression and worthlessness gets a bit irritating after a while (and not a very long while). But you do end up genuinely sympathizing with him, at least for the most part – his self-pitying and constant sobbing are offset, personality-wise, by his intense love and devotion to his family’s welfare (though apparently it still isn’t strong enough for him to suck up his phobia and go back to working in the mines). The end result is a character that, while whiny enough that you want to reach into the pages and smack him, is still believable. The fact that a lot of his misfortune is brought on by bad luck and the overwhelming apathy of the world around him, instead of just his own sad uselessness, also helps save what might have been an otherwise excruciatingly sad-sack protagonist.
But ignore what Miss Reichert and the back cover of the book say – the real star of this story isn’t Tamison, the guard (Dallan), or the fortune teller (Rifkah). It’s the weasely bastard of a con man that Tamison can’t stop running into, the aptly-named Con. This guy’s selfish lack of a moral compass and unwillingness to sugarcoat anything for anyone is a breath of fresh air amidst the hopeful optimism and general boyscout do-goodery of the rest of the starring party, and his quick wit and blunt, sarcastic dialogue are at once impressive and entertaining to read in the circumstances. His back story’s also far more interesting than anything Tamison, Dallan, and Rifkah can come up with.
The story itself also grows past a simple “save some good guys from some bad guys” fetch quest to envelope a degree of political intrigue, subterfuge, loyalty dilemmas, and good ol’ fashion backstabbery. I won’t say anything more past the obvious (there’s a twist, you know there’s gonna be a twist, there’s always a twist) other than to say that the generic good-guy-bad-guy feeling the book’s own synopsis offers slips slowly into a more realistic, more satisfying realm of uncertain grayness that accompanies all conflicts between the world’s two rival governments, the one Tamison belongs to and the one he’s told is harboring his missing family.
Basically, each time you think this book is going to march the plot or one of the characters into Generic Land (and you will occasionally think this multiple times), the direction skews off at the last moment to surprise you. The result is that you end up reading the book in two minds: one for soaking up the story and being entertained, and one with a critical eye turned always on the author’s style, to see where it threatens to stray into unimpressiveness and how it keeps saving itself.
But don’t focus overly much on my criticisms – that’s just how I’ve been trained to talk about good writing, to search for the roughest spots and pick at them in order to see how the whole thing might be polished even more. The reason this book is so easy to criticize is because its weak spots are few and manageable and therefor easy to cover and be done with in the length of a blog post. The overall impression I came away with is still one of a fun, thoughtful, imaginative tale, at times suspenseful, at times moving, and always deeply visual. I didn’t mention the detailed visual descriptions did I? Oh well, I just did. Now you know they’re there.
It’s not going to turn into the next blockbuster fantasy franchise, but if you find it in your used book store, there are less-enjoyable ways to spend your reading time. I recommend Flightless Falcon to anyone who enjoys well-written, character-driven fantasy and doesn’t need it to last through a dozen sequels.