Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Three Heart Echo in Books
May 16, 2018
Three Heart Echo by Keary Taylor ended up on my reading list by yet another mislabeling on NetGalley, I must admit. As seen in the title image above, the book is a paranormal suspense. If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ll no doubt guess that I grabbed it from the horror genre titles. Fortunately, after revisiting its cover I can at least say that its actual genre is the right one. While Three Heart Echo does have some elements of horror, it reads more like a paranormal-themed Lifetime movie.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.
“I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.”
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has produced some fine films in his time as an established director; Ocean’s Eleven was a sublime mix of dark humour and action, whilst Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen remained decent but not exactly pulse-racing. Here, it seems Soderbergh sticks to what he knows best, how to deliver a brilliantly shot, gripping film. Here we have, Contagion.
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/
Although Fire is listed as the second book in the Graceling Realm series, it is really a prequel and generally unrelated to the first book. The events of Fire take place some 30+ years before the events of Graceling and in a different land. Although the two are somehow magically connected by a series of mountain tunnels, they don't know about one another. I didn't realize this when I started reading the book and was quite confused for a while.
The book starts with an extensive prol0gue which introduces us to a character that only re-emerges in the story for a short time near the conclusion. While I understand his inclusion, as it is the only thing that ties Graceling and Fire together I don't see its purpose in the story. It was not particularly interesting to read and didn't give me a better sense of who the character was. Personally, I would have rather the prologue not have been included in the story as it certainly made my interest in the book wane.
The prologue set a slow and unengaging pace for the start of the book that did not remedy itself for some time. Although the start of the book was enjoyable enough, it didn't really really intriguing until the second half. That is when I really fell in love with the characters and the plot. In Fire, we are introduced to Monsters rather than Gracelings. Human Monsters have special abilities, although there aren't many of them in the Dells. Instead, most of the Monsters are animals with abilities beyond their average non-Monster kin. I don't feel like the Monster idea is well explained in the books and I wish the author had developed that aspect of the world building more.
When we first meet Fire, she is not a very likeable character (at least in my opinion). Her Monster abilities make her so beautiful that people can't control themselves around her and usually either want to possess her or kill her so no one else can have her. Harsh. She also has the ability to get inside people's heads and manipulate their thoughts. Scary. Those combined made it difficult to relate to her character, although over the course of the novel her personality was developed more and she became a little more human.
There were many other characters in the book, but Prince Brigand or Hannah were definitely my favourites. They made the story more enjoyable and I loved the scenes that they were in. Hannah was fiesty and not afraid to stand up for what she believed in, even though she wasn't quite six yet. Prince Brigand loved his brother's Kingdom and did what he must to protect it, even if it would put his life at risk.
The world building was good overall, the characters developed slightly over the course of the story and the pacing was generally decent although there were a few inclusions to the story that significantly slowed the pacing down. My biggest concern/problem with the book was the character I mentioned from the prologue's inclusion into the story later on. He didn't fit in with the story initially and his re-introduction just completely threw off the plot. Our characters went off on this side storyline that didn't add anything to the plot and reinforces for me that his inclusion wasn't necessary. I understand that he was the only aspect that binds the two books together, but his inclusion detracts from the otherwise enjoyable story.
In the end, his inclusion and the small details thrown in throughout the story took away from the world of the Dells that was very enjoyable. The book would have certainly been rated more favourably by me if those aspects were removed. Overall though, I really enjoyed reading the book and can't wait to finish the series (although it is also another jump in time and space, so be prepared for some confusion initially.)
The book starts with an extensive prol0gue which introduces us to a character that only re-emerges in the story for a short time near the conclusion. While I understand his inclusion, as it is the only thing that ties Graceling and Fire together I don't see its purpose in the story. It was not particularly interesting to read and didn't give me a better sense of who the character was. Personally, I would have rather the prologue not have been included in the story as it certainly made my interest in the book wane.
The prologue set a slow and unengaging pace for the start of the book that did not remedy itself for some time. Although the start of the book was enjoyable enough, it didn't really really intriguing until the second half. That is when I really fell in love with the characters and the plot. In Fire, we are introduced to Monsters rather than Gracelings. Human Monsters have special abilities, although there aren't many of them in the Dells. Instead, most of the Monsters are animals with abilities beyond their average non-Monster kin. I don't feel like the Monster idea is well explained in the books and I wish the author had developed that aspect of the world building more.
When we first meet Fire, she is not a very likeable character (at least in my opinion). Her Monster abilities make her so beautiful that people can't control themselves around her and usually either want to possess her or kill her so no one else can have her. Harsh. She also has the ability to get inside people's heads and manipulate their thoughts. Scary. Those combined made it difficult to relate to her character, although over the course of the novel her personality was developed more and she became a little more human.
There were many other characters in the book, but Prince Brigand or Hannah were definitely my favourites. They made the story more enjoyable and I loved the scenes that they were in. Hannah was fiesty and not afraid to stand up for what she believed in, even though she wasn't quite six yet. Prince Brigand loved his brother's Kingdom and did what he must to protect it, even if it would put his life at risk.
The world building was good overall, the characters developed slightly over the course of the story and the pacing was generally decent although there were a few inclusions to the story that significantly slowed the pacing down. My biggest concern/problem with the book was the character I mentioned from the prologue's inclusion into the story later on. He didn't fit in with the story initially and his re-introduction just completely threw off the plot. Our characters went off on this side storyline that didn't add anything to the plot and reinforces for me that his inclusion wasn't necessary. I understand that he was the only aspect that binds the two books together, but his inclusion detracts from the otherwise enjoyable story.
In the end, his inclusion and the small details thrown in throughout the story took away from the world of the Dells that was very enjoyable. The book would have certainly been rated more favourably by me if those aspects were removed. Overall though, I really enjoyed reading the book and can't wait to finish the series (although it is also another jump in time and space, so be prepared for some confusion initially.)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
Okay, so I'd been wanting to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky since I heard about the film. Everyone went on about how great the book was, and I knew that I had to read it. There was one major thing that bothered me, but on the whole I loved it!
Charlie is a freshman in high school and is a little bit of a geek. This is the coming of age of Charlie as he writes letters to unknown friend. Together, we experience the highs and lows of one year of his life in which he does a lot of firsts and finds out some important information about himself.
I like the title of this book. I really do. Our main character is a big time wallflower, and he does discover that it has its perks. Therefore, the title really explains the books. I also think it's quite an original title and an interesting sounding one at that.
The cover of this book is quite simple yet it just kind of works. I think that if there would've been more on the cover, it would've lost its appeal.
Chbosky did an excellent job with the world building. Reading this book, it took me back to my high school days. I thought the author did a great job in capturing the essence of high school kids. I also love how the narration of the story was told through letters.
I thought the pacing was spot on. I would've finished this book in less than a day if real life hadn't have got in the way! I devoured every word, and I couldn't wait to find out what Charlie would experience next.
As for the dialogue, I thought it did sound like a bunch of teenagers talking to one another which is was supposed to. However, the way Charlie spoke bugged me a bit. His dialogue (both internally and to the other characters) made him sound like he was either really young or a bit slow. Perhaps this was done on purpose, and I'm missing the point completely. There are references to sex, drugs, and the like so please keep this in mind when deciding if this is the book for you as I know some people might not like reading about that. As for swear words, I think there may've been only one, but it wasn't a bad swear word.
As stated in the previous paragraph, I felt that the character of Charlie seemed to be either slow or really young. I'm not saying that he was a poorly written character because he wasn't. He just came across as too naive on most things to feel believable a lot of the time. He is meant to be 15 year old, yet he acts, speaks and thinks more like a 10 year old. Maybe this was just me, but that really bugged me! However, I did love Sam and Patrick. I loved how feminine and sweet Sam came across as, and I loved how big of a personality Patrick had. I would have to say that Patrick was probably my favourite character in the book.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was definitely an enjoyable read for me. I think if Charlie would've acted more like his age, it would've been a tad bit better.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 14+ that enjoys reading about the ups and downs of life as well as those adults who want to remember their high school years.
Okay, so I'd been wanting to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky since I heard about the film. Everyone went on about how great the book was, and I knew that I had to read it. There was one major thing that bothered me, but on the whole I loved it!
Charlie is a freshman in high school and is a little bit of a geek. This is the coming of age of Charlie as he writes letters to unknown friend. Together, we experience the highs and lows of one year of his life in which he does a lot of firsts and finds out some important information about himself.
I like the title of this book. I really do. Our main character is a big time wallflower, and he does discover that it has its perks. Therefore, the title really explains the books. I also think it's quite an original title and an interesting sounding one at that.
The cover of this book is quite simple yet it just kind of works. I think that if there would've been more on the cover, it would've lost its appeal.
Chbosky did an excellent job with the world building. Reading this book, it took me back to my high school days. I thought the author did a great job in capturing the essence of high school kids. I also love how the narration of the story was told through letters.
I thought the pacing was spot on. I would've finished this book in less than a day if real life hadn't have got in the way! I devoured every word, and I couldn't wait to find out what Charlie would experience next.
As for the dialogue, I thought it did sound like a bunch of teenagers talking to one another which is was supposed to. However, the way Charlie spoke bugged me a bit. His dialogue (both internally and to the other characters) made him sound like he was either really young or a bit slow. Perhaps this was done on purpose, and I'm missing the point completely. There are references to sex, drugs, and the like so please keep this in mind when deciding if this is the book for you as I know some people might not like reading about that. As for swear words, I think there may've been only one, but it wasn't a bad swear word.
As stated in the previous paragraph, I felt that the character of Charlie seemed to be either slow or really young. I'm not saying that he was a poorly written character because he wasn't. He just came across as too naive on most things to feel believable a lot of the time. He is meant to be 15 year old, yet he acts, speaks and thinks more like a 10 year old. Maybe this was just me, but that really bugged me! However, I did love Sam and Patrick. I loved how feminine and sweet Sam came across as, and I loved how big of a personality Patrick had. I would have to say that Patrick was probably my favourite character in the book.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was definitely an enjoyable read for me. I think if Charlie would've acted more like his age, it would've been a tad bit better.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 14+ that enjoys reading about the ups and downs of life as well as those adults who want to remember their high school years.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Rage (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
If you get the option to see this film you really should take the chance.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I started out making a blog for movie reviews a short while ago for the purpose of making reviews for fans. However, I didn't expect to be sent films to review so soon. I was put in touch with film maker Chris Witherspoon, he is promoting an independent film that he wrote, produced, directed and starred in called Rage. He sent me a copy and asked if I would review it for him. Happily I accepted. This is what being a film critic and reviewer is all about. Then I started to think, an independent film? There are a lot of them around and a lot of them are made by people that believe they possess the talent and ability to make a film, but in reality they fall far short of the mark. To get a good and unbiased opinion of the film I only watched the trailer for it, I left all the promotional material I received alone. The film arrived and with a fair amount of trepidation I put it on.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
May 30, 2018
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.