Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Beowulf (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The classic Epic poem Beowulf has come to the big screen in a stunning CGI extravaganza under the direction of Director Robert Zemeckis.
For those not familiar with the poem, it is an ancient Danish poem that talks of the heroic exploits of the hero Beowulf, as he battles all manner of bizarre creatures. The poem was told orally from generation to generation and eventually became known to many as the source of much of the early great literature from the western world.
I first became familiar with the tale some twenty years ago during my early years in private school where our headmaster had it as required reading for all of his students in honors level English.
The film stays very close to the poem and tells the tale of King Hrothgar (Sir Anthony Hopkins), a troubled leader whose kingdom is under siege by a hideous creature known as Grendel (Crispin Glover).
During a brutal attack by Grendel which results in the loss of many lives, King Hrothgar promises half the gold in his kingdom to any hero who can rid the land once and for all of the foul creature that has caused so much suffering.
In short order, the heroic Beowulf (Ray Winstone), arrives with is army of warriors to take up the challenge. Beowulf is legendary for his exploits in vanishing monsters, but his boastful nature raises the concerns of Unferth (John Malkovich), who thinks that Beowulf ‘s reputation and ability is far more style than substance.
Eventually Beowulf battles Grendel, and accomplishes his goal but learns that the monster has a Demonic mother that to must be destroyed in order for peace to truly be achieved.
Beowulf sets off the kill the demon (Angelina Jolie), but finds himself unable to match her whiles, and enters into a deal that has far reaching repercussions.
The second half of the film deals with the consequences of Beowulf’s decisions and how having is not nearly as important as wanting, which leads to a spectacular and FX filled final segment.
The film is amazing, and for those lucky enough to see the film in 3D, filled with amazing visual treats.
While the film is in no way suitable for children due to the violence it contains, the story holds up very well centuries later, and provides a solidly entertaining tale of heroism, betrayal, and morality that stands the test of time.
I had concerns that the film would be a slap-dashed effort that was attempting to cash in on the success of “The 300”, but in actuality, I found this film to be far more entertaining and satisfying.
The voice work of the cast is solid, but it is clearly the visuals that drive this film, as well as the dynamic effects made possible by the latest advancements in 3D technology as the film literally bursts out of the screen.
Beowulf will not be for everyone as those unfamiliar with the work on which it is based may find it derivative or predictable, but when you consider this is literally the tale that started it all, you could make an argument, that it set the table for all future tales to follow.
For those not familiar with the poem, it is an ancient Danish poem that talks of the heroic exploits of the hero Beowulf, as he battles all manner of bizarre creatures. The poem was told orally from generation to generation and eventually became known to many as the source of much of the early great literature from the western world.
I first became familiar with the tale some twenty years ago during my early years in private school where our headmaster had it as required reading for all of his students in honors level English.
The film stays very close to the poem and tells the tale of King Hrothgar (Sir Anthony Hopkins), a troubled leader whose kingdom is under siege by a hideous creature known as Grendel (Crispin Glover).
During a brutal attack by Grendel which results in the loss of many lives, King Hrothgar promises half the gold in his kingdom to any hero who can rid the land once and for all of the foul creature that has caused so much suffering.
In short order, the heroic Beowulf (Ray Winstone), arrives with is army of warriors to take up the challenge. Beowulf is legendary for his exploits in vanishing monsters, but his boastful nature raises the concerns of Unferth (John Malkovich), who thinks that Beowulf ‘s reputation and ability is far more style than substance.
Eventually Beowulf battles Grendel, and accomplishes his goal but learns that the monster has a Demonic mother that to must be destroyed in order for peace to truly be achieved.
Beowulf sets off the kill the demon (Angelina Jolie), but finds himself unable to match her whiles, and enters into a deal that has far reaching repercussions.
The second half of the film deals with the consequences of Beowulf’s decisions and how having is not nearly as important as wanting, which leads to a spectacular and FX filled final segment.
The film is amazing, and for those lucky enough to see the film in 3D, filled with amazing visual treats.
While the film is in no way suitable for children due to the violence it contains, the story holds up very well centuries later, and provides a solidly entertaining tale of heroism, betrayal, and morality that stands the test of time.
I had concerns that the film would be a slap-dashed effort that was attempting to cash in on the success of “The 300”, but in actuality, I found this film to be far more entertaining and satisfying.
The voice work of the cast is solid, but it is clearly the visuals that drive this film, as well as the dynamic effects made possible by the latest advancements in 3D technology as the film literally bursts out of the screen.
Beowulf will not be for everyone as those unfamiliar with the work on which it is based may find it derivative or predictable, but when you consider this is literally the tale that started it all, you could make an argument, that it set the table for all future tales to follow.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Grab a moloko or hot chai and peet it with your rot while you viddy my malenky review with your glazzies, real horrorshow.
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Everything to Nothing in Books
Nov 13, 2019
Everything to Nothing follows the story of three young women and the paths their lives take after one fateful night when they each end up with a man. The repercussions of the events lead by turns to each of them losing everything they had, even if they had nothing or everything to start with.
Sarah is at college and struggling to cope with an absent father and an alcoholic mother. She escapes from this life by clubbing and sex until the night in question when she is introduced to the highs available from hard drugs.
Michelle is at college with Sarah and they sometimes meet out clubbing. Michelle is looking for a man who likes her for who she is rather than what she looks like. Could Simon be that man?
Sally is Michelle's best friend. She is also the daughter of a billionaire businessman and lives a life full of servants, fast cars and designer clothes. She has it all except a man who is not interested in her because of her money.
This story is a real rollercoaster of a book. It did take a while to get going and introduce the characters, taking it time to fill in their personalities and circumstances but this is time well spent for later. Of the three Michelle is necessarily less well developed since there is no specific hook to her storyline beyond her association with both of the others. All the characters are well drawn with a sense of realism, even for Sally who lives a lifestyle entirely outside of the experience of 99.99% of the population. They have their flaws but this a real strength and the various dalliances and romances are painted very well and are not in any way forced.
The emotions the story evokes run the whole gamut. Laugh out loud humour at the antics of David's gran; wanting to shake Sarah out of her clearly stupid and self destructive decisions, down to the very harrowing end of the book.
And that ending is the most powerful part of the book and will stay with you for a long time. This is not a morality tale where bad things only happen to bad people and the good guys ride off into the sunset. Bad things can happen to good people and often for little or no reason and the complete deconstruction of the worlds around the three women in final act, although requiring some suspension of belief at some of the coincidences and circumstances, is shocking. And then becomes even more shocking with every page. You have been warned!
The book is not perfect; it is a little slow at times and the 'flashback' sections when the characters are introduced I felt could have been covered with a couple of paragraphs rather than pages of close description of the events as they happened. And occasionally the prose is a little clumsy when trying to express some fine or complex point about a character. But overall this is definitely worth a read. But only if you don't like happy endings.
Note: This book is rated Adult due to frequent and detailed descriptions of sexual acts and drug use
Sarah is at college and struggling to cope with an absent father and an alcoholic mother. She escapes from this life by clubbing and sex until the night in question when she is introduced to the highs available from hard drugs.
Michelle is at college with Sarah and they sometimes meet out clubbing. Michelle is looking for a man who likes her for who she is rather than what she looks like. Could Simon be that man?
Sally is Michelle's best friend. She is also the daughter of a billionaire businessman and lives a life full of servants, fast cars and designer clothes. She has it all except a man who is not interested in her because of her money.
This story is a real rollercoaster of a book. It did take a while to get going and introduce the characters, taking it time to fill in their personalities and circumstances but this is time well spent for later. Of the three Michelle is necessarily less well developed since there is no specific hook to her storyline beyond her association with both of the others. All the characters are well drawn with a sense of realism, even for Sally who lives a lifestyle entirely outside of the experience of 99.99% of the population. They have their flaws but this a real strength and the various dalliances and romances are painted very well and are not in any way forced.
The emotions the story evokes run the whole gamut. Laugh out loud humour at the antics of David's gran; wanting to shake Sarah out of her clearly stupid and self destructive decisions, down to the very harrowing end of the book.
And that ending is the most powerful part of the book and will stay with you for a long time. This is not a morality tale where bad things only happen to bad people and the good guys ride off into the sunset. Bad things can happen to good people and often for little or no reason and the complete deconstruction of the worlds around the three women in final act, although requiring some suspension of belief at some of the coincidences and circumstances, is shocking. And then becomes even more shocking with every page. You have been warned!
The book is not perfect; it is a little slow at times and the 'flashback' sections when the characters are introduced I felt could have been covered with a couple of paragraphs rather than pages of close description of the events as they happened. And occasionally the prose is a little clumsy when trying to express some fine or complex point about a character. But overall this is definitely worth a read. But only if you don't like happy endings.
Note: This book is rated Adult due to frequent and detailed descriptions of sexual acts and drug use
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Last Changeling (The Last Changeling, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
The worst I thought would happen to The Last Changeling is an exact replica of The Iron Fey, only a much darker version.
Thankfully, that isn't the case.
In actuality, The Last Changeling is a talking book. Chelsea Pitcher's latest work certainly didn't sprout a mouth and start speaking to me. Although it would be really cool to have a talking book. "Morning, Last Changeling! Please summarize what I read three weeks ago. Thank you!"
(Should that actually happen, I would probably use it a lot. For the books whose sequels I read years later. *cough* Matched *cough*)
See, one of our main characters, Elora, is a Dark Faery Princess on a quest for the Bright/Seelie Queen. Our other main character is a dude by the name of Taylor who is a soccer player and has great morality, but the guy honestly puts himself down far too much. They meet... at a swing set, and because "Lora" doesn't seem to have a place to go, Taylor offers to let her stay at his house.
Thus begins the talking. And more talking. About faery history, which essentially leads to well... Elora's history (always a great idea for us to know the characters of course, especially the main ones). By the end of the book, you'll know Elora pretty well, and meanwhile... it's pretty much expected Taylor and Elora will fall heads over heels in love from their first meeting. The characters just don't admit it (not that any pair of fictional characters ever do).
Plus, Taylor and I are distant buddies. Quite distant, because it seems as though Pitcher focuses a little too much on Elora and the reader knowing Elora yet neglecting Taylor.
So basically my biggest question is this: Is Elora's quest just talking, trying to acclimate to the mortal world, while trying to figure out the answer to the Bright Queen's riddle which was off the charts wrong? I was sort of expecting adventure. Fireballs! Or... shadowballs in this case...
But I most certainly did not expect talking. Lots and lots of talking.
I guess I'm the reader who prefers the blood and gore. Occasionally, the fluffy, bunny book (NOT like eating bunny tails, as Ella likes to say. Though I suppose that's accurate as well.) is enjoyable.
On the bright side, I do think Elora and Taylor go well together. By the end of the story, Taylor seems much more confident and seems to stand up for himself rather than letting others push him around. And Elora, despite the fact her lack of knowledge of the mortal world is hilarious, makes a great impact to those who would rather be a doormat and not stand up for themselves. I personally think Chelsea Pitcher's latest novel sends a strong message across to readers, even though there's far too much talking than "questing."
----------------------
Advanced copy provided by Flux for review (and the blog tour)
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-tour-the-last-changeling-by-chelsea-pitcher-arc-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Thankfully, that isn't the case.
In actuality, The Last Changeling is a talking book. Chelsea Pitcher's latest work certainly didn't sprout a mouth and start speaking to me. Although it would be really cool to have a talking book. "Morning, Last Changeling! Please summarize what I read three weeks ago. Thank you!"
(Should that actually happen, I would probably use it a lot. For the books whose sequels I read years later. *cough* Matched *cough*)
See, one of our main characters, Elora, is a Dark Faery Princess on a quest for the Bright/Seelie Queen. Our other main character is a dude by the name of Taylor who is a soccer player and has great morality, but the guy honestly puts himself down far too much. They meet... at a swing set, and because "Lora" doesn't seem to have a place to go, Taylor offers to let her stay at his house.
Thus begins the talking. And more talking. About faery history, which essentially leads to well... Elora's history (always a great idea for us to know the characters of course, especially the main ones). By the end of the book, you'll know Elora pretty well, and meanwhile... it's pretty much expected Taylor and Elora will fall heads over heels in love from their first meeting. The characters just don't admit it (not that any pair of fictional characters ever do).
Plus, Taylor and I are distant buddies. Quite distant, because it seems as though Pitcher focuses a little too much on Elora and the reader knowing Elora yet neglecting Taylor.
So basically my biggest question is this: Is Elora's quest just talking, trying to acclimate to the mortal world, while trying to figure out the answer to the Bright Queen's riddle which was off the charts wrong? I was sort of expecting adventure. Fireballs! Or... shadowballs in this case...
But I most certainly did not expect talking. Lots and lots of talking.
I guess I'm the reader who prefers the blood and gore. Occasionally, the fluffy, bunny book (NOT like eating bunny tails, as Ella likes to say. Though I suppose that's accurate as well.) is enjoyable.
On the bright side, I do think Elora and Taylor go well together. By the end of the story, Taylor seems much more confident and seems to stand up for himself rather than letting others push him around. And Elora, despite the fact her lack of knowledge of the mortal world is hilarious, makes a great impact to those who would rather be a doormat and not stand up for themselves. I personally think Chelsea Pitcher's latest novel sends a strong message across to readers, even though there's far too much talking than "questing."
----------------------
Advanced copy provided by Flux for review (and the blog tour)
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-tour-the-last-changeling-by-chelsea-pitcher-arc-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Sam Raimi (1 more)
Alison Lohman
PG-13 (1 more)
Justin Long
Old Lady Curse
Drag me to Hell- is a anethor movie that ive wanted to see for couple years now and it was not disappointed. Its gory, horrorfying, terrorfying, scary, gory and overall a excellent movie.
The plot: Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has a loving boyfriend (Justin Long) and a great job at a Los Angeles bank. But her heavenly life becomes hellish when, in an effort to impress her boss, she denies an old woman's request for an extension on her home loan. In retaliation, the crone places a curse on Christine, threatening her soul with eternal damnation. Christine seeks a psychic's help to break the curse, but the price to save her soul may be more than she can pay.
Raimi wrote Drag Me to Hell with his brother, Ivan, before working on the Spider-Man trilogy.
The original story for Drag Me to Hell was written ten years before the film went into production and was written by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan Raimi. The film went into production under the name The Curse. The Raimis wrote the script as a morality tale, desiring to write a story about a character who wants to be a good person, but makes a sinful choice out of greed for her own betterment and pays the price for it. The Raimis tried to make the character of Christine the main focal point in the film, and tried to have Christine in almost all the scenes in the film.
The most significant parallel is that both stories involve the passing of a cursed object, which has to be passed to someone else, or its possessor will be devoured by one or more demons. Unlike his past horror films, Raimi wanted the film to be rated PG-13 and not strictly driven by gore, stating, "I didn't want to do exactly the same thing I had done before."
After finishing the script, Raimi desired to make the picture after the first draft of the script was completed, but other projects such as the Spider-Man film series became a nearly decade-long endeavor, pushing opportunities to continue work on Drag Me to Hell to late 2007. Raimi offered director Edgar Wright to direct Drag Me to Hell which Wright turned down as he was filming Hot Fuzz and felt that "If I did it, it would just feel like karaoke." After the previous three Spider-Man films, Raimi came back to the script of Drag Me to Hell, wanting to make a simpler and lower-budget film.
Raimi said he set out to create “a horror film with lots of wild moments and lots of suspense and big shocks that’ll hopefully make audiences jump. But I also wanted to have a lot of dark humor sprinkled throughout. I spent the last decade doing Spider-Man and you come to rely on a lot of people doing things for you and a lot of help, but it’s refreshing and wonderful to be reminded that, as with most filmmakers, the best way to do it is yourself, with a tight team doing the main jobs."
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has a loving boyfriend (Justin Long) and a great job at a Los Angeles bank. But her heavenly life becomes hellish when, in an effort to impress her boss, she denies an old woman's request for an extension on her home loan. In retaliation, the crone places a curse on Christine, threatening her soul with eternal damnation. Christine seeks a psychic's help to break the curse, but the price to save her soul may be more than she can pay.
Raimi wrote Drag Me to Hell with his brother, Ivan, before working on the Spider-Man trilogy.
The original story for Drag Me to Hell was written ten years before the film went into production and was written by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan Raimi. The film went into production under the name The Curse. The Raimis wrote the script as a morality tale, desiring to write a story about a character who wants to be a good person, but makes a sinful choice out of greed for her own betterment and pays the price for it. The Raimis tried to make the character of Christine the main focal point in the film, and tried to have Christine in almost all the scenes in the film.
The most significant parallel is that both stories involve the passing of a cursed object, which has to be passed to someone else, or its possessor will be devoured by one or more demons. Unlike his past horror films, Raimi wanted the film to be rated PG-13 and not strictly driven by gore, stating, "I didn't want to do exactly the same thing I had done before."
After finishing the script, Raimi desired to make the picture after the first draft of the script was completed, but other projects such as the Spider-Man film series became a nearly decade-long endeavor, pushing opportunities to continue work on Drag Me to Hell to late 2007. Raimi offered director Edgar Wright to direct Drag Me to Hell which Wright turned down as he was filming Hot Fuzz and felt that "If I did it, it would just feel like karaoke." After the previous three Spider-Man films, Raimi came back to the script of Drag Me to Hell, wanting to make a simpler and lower-budget film.
Raimi said he set out to create “a horror film with lots of wild moments and lots of suspense and big shocks that’ll hopefully make audiences jump. But I also wanted to have a lot of dark humor sprinkled throughout. I spent the last decade doing Spider-Man and you come to rely on a lot of people doing things for you and a lot of help, but it’s refreshing and wonderful to be reminded that, as with most filmmakers, the best way to do it is yourself, with a tight team doing the main jobs."
Its a excellent movie.
SMART Futures for a Flourishing World
10.0
Rate It
Book
We know we have to change but the question is how. Many of us feel powerless to solve the looming...
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Redemption in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I did not read the first book in the series, Protector, but that did not seem to matter all that much in reading this book. I caught up relatively easily to what the author felt I needed to know about Jane Perry's story so that I could dive into the action-packed, suspense-filled plot of this book.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.