Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated My Life with Bob in Books
Sep 13, 2018
I need to read more books about books, because the few that I've read, I've really enjoyed! Earlier this year I read Tolstoy and the Purple Chair, and loved it. I have holds on Voracious: A Hungry Reader Cooks Her Way Through Great Books and The World Between Two Covers: Reading the Globe. (I also have a hold on The Man Who Loved Books Too Much, but I'm not sure that quite counts.) And, in looking up the links for those books, I just put holds on three more books about reading, since this is a genre I apparently enjoy!
My Life with Bob is about the author's reading life. Bob is a notebook she uses to keep track of what she's read. Just title and author, and whether or not she's finished it. Very simple. But in looking back through what she's read, she recalls where she was, and what she was doing or going through at the time. So the real story is how her reading choices fit into her life, and how being a bookworm affected her life.
I enjoyed the book, with the slight irritation (in the latter part of the book) of her insistence on calling Young Adult literature, Children's Lit. Children's books are picture books and books for young readers, not The Fault in Our Stars and The Hunger Games. Those are Young Adult, and there's a pretty big difference in my opinion. Maybe not in the professional world; she is the editor of The New York Times Book Review. But it's frustrating to hear her talk about Kid Lit and lump Harry Potter in with a 36-page autobiography of a teddy bear written for kids under 10.
I was also a little shocked to learn (in the book!) she wrote a book about how porn is destroying the American family, and testified before Congress about it, sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback. I normally don't have a problem reading Republican authors - I often don't know the exact political leanings of authors - but I'm reading about her reading choices, and suddenly they are all suspect. (She disliked Ayn Rand, at least, so that's something.) The book was published in May of last year, so after the last presidential election. Anyone who acknowledges working with the GOP at this point, and isn't embarrassed by it, immediately gets a black mark in my book.
So ultimately I'm torn on this book. I liked reading it. I dislike the author. (I will never even try to be non-political on this blog. Sorry-not-sorry.)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
My Life with Bob is about the author's reading life. Bob is a notebook she uses to keep track of what she's read. Just title and author, and whether or not she's finished it. Very simple. But in looking back through what she's read, she recalls where she was, and what she was doing or going through at the time. So the real story is how her reading choices fit into her life, and how being a bookworm affected her life.
I enjoyed the book, with the slight irritation (in the latter part of the book) of her insistence on calling Young Adult literature, Children's Lit. Children's books are picture books and books for young readers, not The Fault in Our Stars and The Hunger Games. Those are Young Adult, and there's a pretty big difference in my opinion. Maybe not in the professional world; she is the editor of The New York Times Book Review. But it's frustrating to hear her talk about Kid Lit and lump Harry Potter in with a 36-page autobiography of a teddy bear written for kids under 10.
I was also a little shocked to learn (in the book!) she wrote a book about how porn is destroying the American family, and testified before Congress about it, sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback. I normally don't have a problem reading Republican authors - I often don't know the exact political leanings of authors - but I'm reading about her reading choices, and suddenly they are all suspect. (She disliked Ayn Rand, at least, so that's something.) The book was published in May of last year, so after the last presidential election. Anyone who acknowledges working with the GOP at this point, and isn't embarrassed by it, immediately gets a black mark in my book.
So ultimately I'm torn on this book. I liked reading it. I dislike the author. (I will never even try to be non-political on this blog. Sorry-not-sorry.)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wedding Crashers (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the tricky world of arbitration, John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn), are two of the best in their field. Day after day, John and Jeremy negotiate divorce settlements between many bitter and hostile clients in an attempt to avoid long and drawn out court cases.
As good as John and Jeremy are at mediation, this pales to their real talents as professional wedding crashers. John and Jeremy revel in their ability to crash weddings and in the process scoring all the food, drink and women they can handle as they move from one event to another with ease.
The actions of the two are based on a strict set of rules for crashing weddings that was passed down to Jeremy and have lead to many moments of merriment and debauchery for the duo. The rules are so detailed that everything from cover stories, ways to gain sympathy, and clues for gaining points with the guests are included.
After a very successful wedding season, John and Jeremy are set to take it easy for a while to recover from the barrage of seduction and partying they have subjected themselves to.
Alas, things do not go as planned as Jeremy convinces John to help him crash the wedding event of the year that will have a prominent political figure in attendance. Despite much reluctance, John goes along an in no time, the duo are at the social event of the year.
Eager to slip into their seduction modes, John and Jeremy have concocted their alibis and set their sites a pair of young ladies, Claire and Gloria Cleary (Rachael McAdams) and (Isla fisher). The two are the daughters of rising political figure Secretary Claire (Christopher Walken), who many think may be on the fast track to the Oval Office.
Things take a turn when John agrees to accompany Claire to an island retreat. Seeing the danger and eager to get away from the bizarre Gloria, Jeremy attempts to extricate himself from the situation.
Of course there would not be much of a film if this were to happen, and before long, John and Jeremy are surrounded by vicious boyfriends, over amorous suitors, and enough mayhem to keep the audience laughing.
The laughs come frequently and each situation becomes even more outrageous than the one that preceded it making for some of the most hilarious moments ever committed to film.
Sure the plot is very thing, but Wilson and Vaughn are enjoyable and if you do not mind some crude humor, you are likely to find yourself laughing along at one of the most pleasant comedic surprises of the year.
As good as John and Jeremy are at mediation, this pales to their real talents as professional wedding crashers. John and Jeremy revel in their ability to crash weddings and in the process scoring all the food, drink and women they can handle as they move from one event to another with ease.
The actions of the two are based on a strict set of rules for crashing weddings that was passed down to Jeremy and have lead to many moments of merriment and debauchery for the duo. The rules are so detailed that everything from cover stories, ways to gain sympathy, and clues for gaining points with the guests are included.
After a very successful wedding season, John and Jeremy are set to take it easy for a while to recover from the barrage of seduction and partying they have subjected themselves to.
Alas, things do not go as planned as Jeremy convinces John to help him crash the wedding event of the year that will have a prominent political figure in attendance. Despite much reluctance, John goes along an in no time, the duo are at the social event of the year.
Eager to slip into their seduction modes, John and Jeremy have concocted their alibis and set their sites a pair of young ladies, Claire and Gloria Cleary (Rachael McAdams) and (Isla fisher). The two are the daughters of rising political figure Secretary Claire (Christopher Walken), who many think may be on the fast track to the Oval Office.
Things take a turn when John agrees to accompany Claire to an island retreat. Seeing the danger and eager to get away from the bizarre Gloria, Jeremy attempts to extricate himself from the situation.
Of course there would not be much of a film if this were to happen, and before long, John and Jeremy are surrounded by vicious boyfriends, over amorous suitors, and enough mayhem to keep the audience laughing.
The laughs come frequently and each situation becomes even more outrageous than the one that preceded it making for some of the most hilarious moments ever committed to film.
Sure the plot is very thing, but Wilson and Vaughn are enjoyable and if you do not mind some crude humor, you are likely to find yourself laughing along at one of the most pleasant comedic surprises of the year.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism
Book
The fame of Joan of Arc began in her lifetime and, though it has dipped a little now and then, she...
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Ethics of Ambiguity in Books
Aug 30, 2017
Complex themes, slightly obvious
Simone De Beauvoir is one of the foremost feminist philiosophers there are. However, unlike in The Second Sex, The Ethics of Ambiguity explores the nature of freedom and basically deconstructs arguments made by pioneering philosophers Marx and Kant. She poses the question how can humans be both subject and object yet still be free? She says if humans are born free why are they also treated like objects to control? And there lies the ambiguity.
As free, we have the ability to take note of ourselves and choose what to do. As factic, we are constrained by physical limits, social barriers and the expectations and political power of others. She has quite a Hobbesian approach saying human beings are responsible for their own actions and therefore have to work at creating concrete ideals rather than following an abstract notion of freedom.
She also criticises approaches that require grasping for freedom at the expense of others - adding that inadvertently reduces gaining freedom down to another form of slavery ie. Communism, Capitalism and Democracies.
She concludes that the only way you can will yourself free is to will others free in the process.
While the sentiment is there, her writing style was very repetitive in this book, and at times a little tangential. Not her best work, but still very relevant for current times.
As free, we have the ability to take note of ourselves and choose what to do. As factic, we are constrained by physical limits, social barriers and the expectations and political power of others. She has quite a Hobbesian approach saying human beings are responsible for their own actions and therefore have to work at creating concrete ideals rather than following an abstract notion of freedom.
She also criticises approaches that require grasping for freedom at the expense of others - adding that inadvertently reduces gaining freedom down to another form of slavery ie. Communism, Capitalism and Democracies.
She concludes that the only way you can will yourself free is to will others free in the process.
While the sentiment is there, her writing style was very repetitive in this book, and at times a little tangential. Not her best work, but still very relevant for current times.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Shadow Kiss in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book took a much more central focus of the relationship between Rose and Dimitri, as well as Rose's own unique abilities, thanks to her bond with Lissa. This book delved more into what harnessing the elements could do in practical terms, which I have been very curious about. In some ways, I feel like Mead is holding back in terms of telling the reader all the ways that Spirit can be used, but that is writer's privilege. My favorite part of the books is always Rose's relationship with Dimitri, so much so that I feel everything that she feels, laugh when she laughs, etc. Without spoiling the ending, I can definitely say I felt just as much as she did at the end.
It is interesting to see the effect that Rose and Lissa are collectively having on the political and social structures of this world that Mead has constructed. Unwritten rules that previously were unquestioned are now being broken repeatedly - and not just by Rose. Other Moroi are trying to wield compulsion, male Dhampirs are refusing to become guardians, Moroi are learning to wield their abilities offensively and train under guardians, and so on. Lissa falls under many exceptions, being the only Dragomir, which ironically puts Rose even more in the spotlight of society and allows her to be a catalyst for change.
It is interesting to see the effect that Rose and Lissa are collectively having on the political and social structures of this world that Mead has constructed. Unwritten rules that previously were unquestioned are now being broken repeatedly - and not just by Rose. Other Moroi are trying to wield compulsion, male Dhampirs are refusing to become guardians, Moroi are learning to wield their abilities offensively and train under guardians, and so on. Lissa falls under many exceptions, being the only Dragomir, which ironically puts Rose even more in the spotlight of society and allows her to be a catalyst for change.
Christine A. (965 KP) rated Night of Camp David in Books
Mar 27, 2019
I was provided with a complimentary copy of this book so I could give an honest review.
Night of Camp David by Fletcher Knebel was originally published in 1965. Some of the words were outdated but the story itself stood the test of time.
In Night of Camp David a junior senator, James F. MacVeigh, had a private meeting with President Mark Hollenbach at Camp David. Hollenbach begins to bring MacVeigh into his confidence. At first, MacVeigh is honored but he notices odd behavior of the president and wonders if Hollenbach is unstable.
I have never done this but I am going to copy Howard's Goodreads review which he posted 3/15/15. He wrote "I didn't write a review of this book, because in this instance the publisher's blurb is a perfect review that does not spoil the plot. That is rare." https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1228015367
Because of the current political climate I do not discuss politics. That being said, this is intriguing story and am glad I read it. Just remember it was published in 1965 so some of the attitudes toward women will annoy some people.
I added Fletcher Knebel's 1962 novel, "Seven Days In May" and the corresponding movie starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas to my want to read/see lists.
Review published on Philomathinphila.com on 3/27/19.
Night of Camp David by Fletcher Knebel was originally published in 1965. Some of the words were outdated but the story itself stood the test of time.
In Night of Camp David a junior senator, James F. MacVeigh, had a private meeting with President Mark Hollenbach at Camp David. Hollenbach begins to bring MacVeigh into his confidence. At first, MacVeigh is honored but he notices odd behavior of the president and wonders if Hollenbach is unstable.
I have never done this but I am going to copy Howard's Goodreads review which he posted 3/15/15. He wrote "I didn't write a review of this book, because in this instance the publisher's blurb is a perfect review that does not spoil the plot. That is rare." https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1228015367
Because of the current political climate I do not discuss politics. That being said, this is intriguing story and am glad I read it. Just remember it was published in 1965 so some of the attitudes toward women will annoy some people.
I added Fletcher Knebel's 1962 novel, "Seven Days In May" and the corresponding movie starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas to my want to read/see lists.
Review published on Philomathinphila.com on 3/27/19.
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated Need to Know in Books
May 22, 2019
A CIA analyst specializing in tracking down Russian sleeper agents in the US stumbles upon a file with photos of some of these. One of them turns out to be her husband. When she confronts him with the question 'how long have you been spying for Russia?' instead of denying it, he immediately replies, '22 years.'
This book makes you question how far you would go to protect your husband, your children and your life?
Even if you don’t typically enjoy spy or political thrillers, this is a fantastic read! It's hard for me to know what to say as I don't want to give anything away about the plot. Best way to describe is get in and buckle up for the thrill ride as more and more layers are peeled back and discovered.
We have here a strong female CIA Agent and a host of other well developed characters that add to the well developed boiling pot that is the plot.
Loads of twists and turns throughout. It kept me on my toes and on the edge of my seat. I literally found myself shouting at my kindle at times!!
Highly recommend reading this.
* Thank you to Random House UK for my 'wish for it copy' for which I have given an honest review in exchange*
This book makes you question how far you would go to protect your husband, your children and your life?
Even if you don’t typically enjoy spy or political thrillers, this is a fantastic read! It's hard for me to know what to say as I don't want to give anything away about the plot. Best way to describe is get in and buckle up for the thrill ride as more and more layers are peeled back and discovered.
We have here a strong female CIA Agent and a host of other well developed characters that add to the well developed boiling pot that is the plot.
Loads of twists and turns throughout. It kept me on my toes and on the edge of my seat. I literally found myself shouting at my kindle at times!!
Highly recommend reading this.
* Thank you to Random House UK for my 'wish for it copy' for which I have given an honest review in exchange*
Erika (17789 KP) rated 7 Days In Entebbe (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
I'm not going to put a spoiler alert on this because this event occurred in '76, so obviously everyone should know how it ends.
The movie opens with this modern dance number, and I was immediately confused. I wondered if I'd sat down in the wrong movie. It didn't make sense to me at all in the beginning. From the beginning, I was trying to figure out which side the movie was taking. A lot of the movie consisted of the Prime Minister of Israel and his cabinet trying to decide what to do. I like political thrillers, so I didn't mind the film going in that direction.
I like watching anything with Daniel Bruhl, and he did well in this film. Denis Menochet was a nice surprise in this film, he was excellent as the flight engineer. I had to look up his name, because the only other film I've seen Menochet in was Assassin's Creed, and I'll always remember him because he delivered a few savage lines.
Now, back to this dancing: it annoyed me, UNTIL THE END. Holy crap did it work when it was cut in with scenes of the IDF coming in. There are a collective gasp in the theater. It's only for these last scene that I rated it very good vs good.
The movie opens with this modern dance number, and I was immediately confused. I wondered if I'd sat down in the wrong movie. It didn't make sense to me at all in the beginning. From the beginning, I was trying to figure out which side the movie was taking. A lot of the movie consisted of the Prime Minister of Israel and his cabinet trying to decide what to do. I like political thrillers, so I didn't mind the film going in that direction.
I like watching anything with Daniel Bruhl, and he did well in this film. Denis Menochet was a nice surprise in this film, he was excellent as the flight engineer. I had to look up his name, because the only other film I've seen Menochet in was Assassin's Creed, and I'll always remember him because he delivered a few savage lines.
Now, back to this dancing: it annoyed me, UNTIL THE END. Holy crap did it work when it was cut in with scenes of the IDF coming in. There are a collective gasp in the theater. It's only for these last scene that I rated it very good vs good.
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated Deep Down (Jack Reacher, #16.5) in Books
Jun 20, 2019
Unfulfilling quick Reacher fix
I’m not sure why I keep listening to these Jack Reacher short stories, I think it’s because they are just a quick fix handy to have while doing other jobs.
Set back in the mid 80s we get a glimpse of Reacher’s military career where he is tasked with working out who is leaking information from Capitol Hill. The suspects are four fast-track women; Army political liaison officers. How in the mid 80s likely that all four of these positions would be taken up by women raises an eyebrow but it’s needed to fit the strategy of Reacher trying to get them each alone for a drink (eye-roll.) It doesn't quite work out like that but Reacher quickly gets stuff figured out, has a fight and lets us all go home glad for it to all be over. All standard Reacher just a lot less fleshed out and lacking some intrigue.
There's an odd decision to keep cutting to bits about an unnamed jogger, we find out who this is later but it really adds very little to the story and for a short one it seems a waste.
Like having something sweet when you are starving; it’s a quick yet ultimately unfulfilling experience. It’s not like it’s even a great chocolate bar….
Set back in the mid 80s we get a glimpse of Reacher’s military career where he is tasked with working out who is leaking information from Capitol Hill. The suspects are four fast-track women; Army political liaison officers. How in the mid 80s likely that all four of these positions would be taken up by women raises an eyebrow but it’s needed to fit the strategy of Reacher trying to get them each alone for a drink (eye-roll.) It doesn't quite work out like that but Reacher quickly gets stuff figured out, has a fight and lets us all go home glad for it to all be over. All standard Reacher just a lot less fleshed out and lacking some intrigue.
There's an odd decision to keep cutting to bits about an unnamed jogger, we find out who this is later but it really adds very little to the story and for a short one it seems a waste.
Like having something sweet when you are starving; it’s a quick yet ultimately unfulfilling experience. It’s not like it’s even a great chocolate bar….