Search
Search results
A(
Afterlife (Afterlife Saga, #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Afterlife… just some gothic nightclub where gossip is fuelled by the presence of a rich and...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rare Beasts (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Directorial debuts are tough, and it gives people a chance to establish their personal style. Sadly for me, Billie Piper’s first film had a style that didn’t sit well with me at all. She was heavily involved in the project; directing, writing and starring in it, but her unique first film is perhaps a bit too quirky.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Nolte steals the movie
It's always interesting to me that when I leave a film and realize that the best part of the movie I just saw was the extra scene during the credits. What were the folks that made this movie thinking? Did they save the best for last? Most of the time it is - unfortunately - that this scene shines BECAUSE it really has nothing to do with the rest of the film, in both style and substance.
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Virtual Town
Games and Entertainment
App
***NOTE: Some older devices will not be able to play Virtual Town well right now. That includes:...
Remind Me (Mystic Beach Fantasy Rockstar Romances, #4)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Recipe for a Delicious Love Story: • 1 spicy rockstar • 1 salty chef • a sweet first love ...
Paranormal RockStar Romance
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Feb 5, 2019 (Updated Feb 5, 2019)
Natasha Lyonne carries this entire series phenomenally (2 more)
Good, tight script full of quick, witty dialogue
Short and sweet
Death Becomes Her
I watched Netflix's latest series Russian Doll over the past weekend and I loved it. Natasha Lyonne stars as a woman who on the night of her 36th birthday party, is suddenly hit by a car and dies. She then comes to and finds herself again standing in the bathroom in front of the sink back at her birthday party without a scratch. Then after dying a few more times and returning to the same spot in the bathroom, she realises that she is unable to stay dead and is going to be stuck in this loop indefinitely.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Boyfriend Swap in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Robyn and Sydney are similar in many ways. They are both successful in their careers. Robyn is a music teacher and Sydney is a lawyer. They both have boyfriends that are very attractive. They also both don't want to take the boyfriends home with them for the holidays. For Robyn, her family is tired of seeing her with artsy men who have no future. For Sydney, she is tired of her father monopolizing the holiday with shop talk. The holidays are supposed to be fun, not judgmental and hostile. So, even though they've just met, Sydney comes up with brilliant idea, swap boyfriends for the holiday. It's just a few days, what's the harm? When Robyn finds out Sydney is dating her childhood crush, will she be able to hold it together? And how will her family handle this? Is this swap really such a good idea?
Thank you to Meredith Schorr, NetGalley, and Henery Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
First of all, I'm not sure this is something I would have ever been able to do. To trade boyfriends at all, but with someone I don't even know. I'm not sure it would work out for me. It's been a while since I've read a book quite like this. It was cute and quirky and I can easily see this being made into a movie.
Robyn's Story
For Robyn, whenever she brings home a guy who is good to her, she has fun with, and is artsy like her parents, they let her know that he is not the right guy for her. She needs a guy with a steady job someone with a 401K and a savings account. Robyn and her boyfriend Perry have been together for almost a year, and they have a lot of fun together. But is he really, "The One"?
Bringing home Will is going to shock the hell out of her family. He was her childhood crush and now he's pretending to be her boyfriend. Will she be able to keep up the farce over the few days they spend with her family or will the secret be revealed before it's even started?
Sydney's Story
Sydney has to bring home a date for Christmas. If not her parents will try to set her up with some hideous guy she would never be interested in, but would be good for business. And she doesn't want to bring home Will. Will is a lawyer just like Sydney, and like Sydney's father. If she brings him home, all her father will do the entire time is try to recruit him to their law firm, and Sydney doesn't want to subject him to that. She also likes keeping her personal life to herself.
When Sydney brings Perry to the family dinner, she is surprised at how well her family likes him. This was not how she had planned this to go. And then when Perry deviates from her script, it makes things even worse. Will they be able to make it through the holiday without killing each other.
This book was a funny, romantic read that had me routing for one character to the end. This is the first book I have read by Meredith Schorr, but it won't be my last. I look forward to reading more of her books.
Thank you to Meredith Schorr, NetGalley, and Henery Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
First of all, I'm not sure this is something I would have ever been able to do. To trade boyfriends at all, but with someone I don't even know. I'm not sure it would work out for me. It's been a while since I've read a book quite like this. It was cute and quirky and I can easily see this being made into a movie.
Robyn's Story
For Robyn, whenever she brings home a guy who is good to her, she has fun with, and is artsy like her parents, they let her know that he is not the right guy for her. She needs a guy with a steady job someone with a 401K and a savings account. Robyn and her boyfriend Perry have been together for almost a year, and they have a lot of fun together. But is he really, "The One"?
Bringing home Will is going to shock the hell out of her family. He was her childhood crush and now he's pretending to be her boyfriend. Will she be able to keep up the farce over the few days they spend with her family or will the secret be revealed before it's even started?
Sydney's Story
Sydney has to bring home a date for Christmas. If not her parents will try to set her up with some hideous guy she would never be interested in, but would be good for business. And she doesn't want to bring home Will. Will is a lawyer just like Sydney, and like Sydney's father. If she brings him home, all her father will do the entire time is try to recruit him to their law firm, and Sydney doesn't want to subject him to that. She also likes keeping her personal life to herself.
When Sydney brings Perry to the family dinner, she is surprised at how well her family likes him. This was not how she had planned this to go. And then when Perry deviates from her script, it makes things even worse. Will they be able to make it through the holiday without killing each other.
This book was a funny, romantic read that had me routing for one character to the end. This is the first book I have read by Meredith Schorr, but it won't be my last. I look forward to reading more of her books.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated Dead Letter Office in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Before I start, please note that this book was given to me free by the publisher in exchange for a review. What I have written is my honest opinion.
This is the first 'Active Fiction' e-book I've read. It gives the reader an option of the direction they want the plot to take. The last time I read a book (let alone an e-book!) in any way similar to that was when I was about 10, reading an Enid Blyton <i>Famous Five</i> 'red herring' book. I was therefore really intrigued as to what to expect. Would there be red herrings? Would it make the book worse? Well, no and no, as it turns out. I'll get to that in a bit.
This is a brilliantly written story that centres around Celia, who has just lost her father and moved to New Orleans with her mum so she can get to know her father's side of the family. Celia soon has 3 friends (2 of which are potential love interests) and bounces well off the other characters. Snyder has included the obligatory 'popular crowd', but added unusual details to a few of the group's members that makes it interesting, and slightly more dangerous than your average 'death-by-gossip' group.
Starting from the beginning, this was one of those books I knew would capture my interest as soon as I read the first line:
<blockquote>"The dead man smiles at me."</blockquote>
The rest of this page draws me in further, and I went from there. An odd thing I liked (and noticed fairly early on) is that Celia doesn't ruin the first person narrative she's got going on by telling us what she looks like. It's good enough for me to know she's pretty enough to have a surfer dude boyfriend before she moves away, haha!
Coming back to the reader choices, I was a little startled when the first one came up, but that's just me not being used to it! I liked the sense of power I got from helping Celia make the 'right' choice. They were also placed really well within the story, at pivotal plot moments, so there wasn't too much or too little of them. There was only one (right at the end) that I thought was pointless, although having re-read the description on Goodreads, I now know that it's a vote the author wanted so as to establish reader preference on Celia's love interests. Lucky Cee!
I must admit, I did read all the alternative versions, so I can say that there are no 'red herrings'. Some choices lead you to the answer faster than others, and sometimes there'll be a quirky scene that comes with one choice, but is barely mentioned in the other. Without wanting to spoil anything, something key to the background knowledge of Donovan and Peyton's relationship is only mentioned in one of the choices. I haven't quite decided if this is a good thing yet - that little piece of knowledge was good to know, I thought!
Overall, Kira Snyder has built a great sense of anticipation between the main characters, and has set the foundation for future crime/mystery-solving. It was a brilliant book and I'll definitely be reading the next in the series.
This is the first 'Active Fiction' e-book I've read. It gives the reader an option of the direction they want the plot to take. The last time I read a book (let alone an e-book!) in any way similar to that was when I was about 10, reading an Enid Blyton <i>Famous Five</i> 'red herring' book. I was therefore really intrigued as to what to expect. Would there be red herrings? Would it make the book worse? Well, no and no, as it turns out. I'll get to that in a bit.
This is a brilliantly written story that centres around Celia, who has just lost her father and moved to New Orleans with her mum so she can get to know her father's side of the family. Celia soon has 3 friends (2 of which are potential love interests) and bounces well off the other characters. Snyder has included the obligatory 'popular crowd', but added unusual details to a few of the group's members that makes it interesting, and slightly more dangerous than your average 'death-by-gossip' group.
Starting from the beginning, this was one of those books I knew would capture my interest as soon as I read the first line:
<blockquote>"The dead man smiles at me."</blockquote>
The rest of this page draws me in further, and I went from there. An odd thing I liked (and noticed fairly early on) is that Celia doesn't ruin the first person narrative she's got going on by telling us what she looks like. It's good enough for me to know she's pretty enough to have a surfer dude boyfriend before she moves away, haha!
Coming back to the reader choices, I was a little startled when the first one came up, but that's just me not being used to it! I liked the sense of power I got from helping Celia make the 'right' choice. They were also placed really well within the story, at pivotal plot moments, so there wasn't too much or too little of them. There was only one (right at the end) that I thought was pointless, although having re-read the description on Goodreads, I now know that it's a vote the author wanted so as to establish reader preference on Celia's love interests. Lucky Cee!
I must admit, I did read all the alternative versions, so I can say that there are no 'red herrings'. Some choices lead you to the answer faster than others, and sometimes there'll be a quirky scene that comes with one choice, but is barely mentioned in the other. Without wanting to spoil anything, something key to the background knowledge of Donovan and Peyton's relationship is only mentioned in one of the choices. I haven't quite decided if this is a good thing yet - that little piece of knowledge was good to know, I thought!
Overall, Kira Snyder has built a great sense of anticipation between the main characters, and has set the foundation for future crime/mystery-solving. It was a brilliant book and I'll definitely be reading the next in the series.