Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
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, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (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 <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> 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 <i>Christina’s World</i>, 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].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> 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, </i>A Piece of the World</i> 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.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
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, <i>A Piece of the World</i> is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: <i>Christina’s World</i> (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 <i>Charcot-Marie-Tooth</i> 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 <i>Christina’s World</i>, 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].”
<i>A Piece of the World</i> 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, </i>A Piece of the World</i> 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.
<imgsrc="https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=33c151dba7f8de4c"width="100"height="40"alt="ChristinasWorld"/>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated White Noise (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ever since the phenomenal success of “The Sixth Sense”, films dealing with the supernatural have been an ever increasing presence at theaters world wide as studios attempt to find the next break out film in the genre to ensure lucrative box office and video returns.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
The latest foray into the Supernatural is the new Michael Keaton film White Noise, which is based on the actual study of E.V.P. or Electronic Voice Phenomena which is reputed some paranormal investigators to be the voices of dead people speaking to the living via static in electronic devices.
Although the factuality of this is still a topic of hot debate, as after decades of study, no conclusive finding either way as to the legitimacy of E.V.P. have been found as many people attribute the supposed voices as simply the mind hearing what it wants to hear. Despite this, there are a growing number of groups and organizations worldwide who are dedicated to the study of E.V.P.
The film centers on Jonathan Rivers’s (Michael Keaton), a successful architect who is married to a best selling author Anna (Chandra West). The couple is anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child as Jonathan has a son from a previous marriage and is thrilled to see his family grow
Tragedy sets in when Anna goes missing and eventually is found dead after an apparent accident. Jonathan has his world collapse around him yet and is living in a state of despair. Shortly, a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) comes to Jonathan claiming that he has been receiving messages from Anna from the afterlife. Jonathan is at first dismissive but when he gets calls on his cell that are originating from Anna’s cell number; he visits Raymond and learns about E.V.P.
Jonathan becomes drawn into the study of E.V.P. and soon becomes obsessed with recording voices and images from the afterlife as he is desperate to stay in contact with Anna. All is not well though as Raymond failed to tell Jonathan that there are evil and dangerous entities in the afterlife and they can also use E.V.P. as a way to access and influence the living.
Jonathan also meets a fellow E.V.P user named Sara (Deborah Kara Unger), who like Jonathan becomes involved in a deeper and darker mystery as Jonathan begins to decipher a pattern behind the messages as well as the intentions behind them.
White Noise starts well as a solid mystery and had a few moments where what you imagine is often more intense than what the reality really is. Early in the film there are some good chills and creepy moments as the story unfolds. Roughly ¾ of the way into the film, the tone of the film changes from supernatural thriller to that of a mystery and I suspect that the film will lose many people at this point. The film was working well as a thrill, yet the last ¼ of the film and the conclusion become confused and sporadic as the momentum and flow of the film is lost.
The conclusion was unsatisfying as I was able to see where it was going and based on the very promising first hour of the film, it was sad to see that the film took the easy way out and relied on tired premises instead of continuing to forge ahead with the new premise and take it to what should have been a much better and more logical conclusion.
Keaton does solid work and carries the film very well. It is great to see him back on the big screen as he is a gifted and versatile actor who is capable of handling a wide range of roles.
While not a bad film, White Noise is sunk by the issues with the finale that I mentioned above. That being said, it is an entertaining film that aside from the ending, does generally work and holds the attention of the viewer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Interpreter (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1945, the leaders of the world formed a charter to create the United Nations in an attempt to prevent conflicts that resulted in the Second World War. Unlike the
League of Nations before it, the U.N. as it is often known has endured over time, and has seen its membership grow over the years.
In the new film The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman stars as Sylvia Broom, an interpreter at the U.N. who spends her days translating various languages into English during various meetings and assemblies.
One evening Sylvia returns to the U.N. after hours to retrieve a bag that she had left in a sound booth. Unexpectedly, Sylvia hears a whispered conversation over the speakers in an African dialect know only to a few people, herself being one of them.
Despite some reservations Sylvia does not report her discovery until the following morning, when some odd circumstances come into play. Chief amongst them is the discovery that the person referred to in the conversation as “The Teacher” is very likely a controversial African leader who is on his way to address the U.N. in an effort to avoid being placed on trial by the World Court for atrocities.
Assigned to investigate the case is Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), an F.B.I. agent who has recently lost his wife and despite his grief, is throwing himself into his work. Tobin is skeptical over Sylvia’s report as he finds it odd that she just happened to overhear a conversation in a language that only a handful of people in the country, she included could understand. Tobin’s instincts tell him that this is simply a ploy to cancel the pending visit allowing political rivals to claim power in the absence of the African leader.
Under the thought that it is better to be safe than sorry, Tobin begins to investigate the case, and soon has far more questions than answers. It becomes clear that Sylvia is hiding something, and may indeed have a connection to the plot.
When Sylvia reports a break in and a masked figure on her balcony, Tobin and his team set up surveillance of Sylvia in an effort to get to the bottom of the plot With time definitely not on their side, more questions than answers keep emerging especially when prime suspects begin to vanish, and later turn up dead, or become victims in a horrific act of terrorism leaving Tobin to put the pieces together and protect the African leader at all costs.
While the film has a good premise and cast, it is sunk by a very dull and plodding plot, that drags on for over two hours and fails to pay off. The film could easily have had thirty minutes trimmed from its running time and not lost much of the story. While this may be a matter of stylistic preference what cannot be overlooked are the films glaring lack of tension or suspense and the sad lack of chemistry between Kidman and Penn. While theirs is not a romantic relationship, Penn seems as if he is being restrained as his part does not allow his talents to show.
The same goes for Kidman, who seems to be having trouble with her accents, as she flips between American, and African tinted accents throughout the film and seems at times to be simply going through the motions.
What is most puzzling to me is how a gifted director like Sydney Pollack allows the film to go on and on without any suspense or real dynamic to the story. It just keeps plodding along and never seems to go anywhere. It does not build up to the finale, it just happens and with some uninspired twists. It was very obvious to me from the start of the film who was behind the plot. There are some red herrings in the film but they seem tacked on rather than natural elements to the plot.
League of Nations before it, the U.N. as it is often known has endured over time, and has seen its membership grow over the years.
In the new film The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman stars as Sylvia Broom, an interpreter at the U.N. who spends her days translating various languages into English during various meetings and assemblies.
One evening Sylvia returns to the U.N. after hours to retrieve a bag that she had left in a sound booth. Unexpectedly, Sylvia hears a whispered conversation over the speakers in an African dialect know only to a few people, herself being one of them.
Despite some reservations Sylvia does not report her discovery until the following morning, when some odd circumstances come into play. Chief amongst them is the discovery that the person referred to in the conversation as “The Teacher” is very likely a controversial African leader who is on his way to address the U.N. in an effort to avoid being placed on trial by the World Court for atrocities.
Assigned to investigate the case is Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), an F.B.I. agent who has recently lost his wife and despite his grief, is throwing himself into his work. Tobin is skeptical over Sylvia’s report as he finds it odd that she just happened to overhear a conversation in a language that only a handful of people in the country, she included could understand. Tobin’s instincts tell him that this is simply a ploy to cancel the pending visit allowing political rivals to claim power in the absence of the African leader.
Under the thought that it is better to be safe than sorry, Tobin begins to investigate the case, and soon has far more questions than answers. It becomes clear that Sylvia is hiding something, and may indeed have a connection to the plot.
When Sylvia reports a break in and a masked figure on her balcony, Tobin and his team set up surveillance of Sylvia in an effort to get to the bottom of the plot With time definitely not on their side, more questions than answers keep emerging especially when prime suspects begin to vanish, and later turn up dead, or become victims in a horrific act of terrorism leaving Tobin to put the pieces together and protect the African leader at all costs.
While the film has a good premise and cast, it is sunk by a very dull and plodding plot, that drags on for over two hours and fails to pay off. The film could easily have had thirty minutes trimmed from its running time and not lost much of the story. While this may be a matter of stylistic preference what cannot be overlooked are the films glaring lack of tension or suspense and the sad lack of chemistry between Kidman and Penn. While theirs is not a romantic relationship, Penn seems as if he is being restrained as his part does not allow his talents to show.
The same goes for Kidman, who seems to be having trouble with her accents, as she flips between American, and African tinted accents throughout the film and seems at times to be simply going through the motions.
What is most puzzling to me is how a gifted director like Sydney Pollack allows the film to go on and on without any suspense or real dynamic to the story. It just keeps plodding along and never seems to go anywhere. It does not build up to the finale, it just happens and with some uninspired twists. It was very obvious to me from the start of the film who was behind the plot. There are some red herrings in the film but they seem tacked on rather than natural elements to the plot.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Grandma's Boy (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Life for video game tester is often filled with long hours, countless repetition and ever looming deadlines as the rush to get the latest games done and on budget is a key factor in the gaming industry. Often testers, much like the game coders toil away in obscurity with only their fellow gamers and personality quirks as their only companions. One such individual is a man named Alex (Allen Covert), a 36 year old professional game tester who suddenly finds himself out of his home thanks to a roommate who spends months of rent money at a local brothel.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
The daughter (and stepdaughter) of actors, Sally Field earned her first acting role at seventeen and was quickly on television in shows such as "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." Those roles showcased Sally's youth and smiling personality. But, behind the scenes, Sally had a tumultuous childhood: her parents divorced when she was young, and her relationships with them and her stepfather were not easy. She found happiness, in many ways, as an actress, but also struggled to find roles that challenged her. In this, her first memoir, she tells the story of her childhood and her early years as an actress.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
During the opening credits of Jojo Rabbit, we're treated to The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" while documentary footage plays showing crowds of Germans going absolutely nuts for Hitler, sieg-heiling and cheering for him. It's a fairly good indication of the kind of humour you can expect from Jojo Rabbit and writer/director Taika Waititi, who hit the big time after directing 'Thor Ragnarok', but has previously been responsible for a wide range of brilliantly quirky movies such as 'What We Do in the Shadows' and 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople'.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Like A Boss (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
Before going in I knew this was either going to be fantastic or a total disaster, it wasn't likely to fall in the middle of the scale. For the most part that was an accurate assumption.
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Toll (Arc of a Scythe, #3) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2656699288">Scythe</a>; - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998629500">Thunderhead</a>; - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3080800725">The Toll</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
And here is my review of The Toll. We have reached the end of the series, guys.
It’s been three years since Rowan and Citra disappeared; since Scythe Goddard came into power; since the Thunderhead closed itself off to everyone but Grayson Tolliver.
In this pulse-pounding conclusion to New York Times bestselling author Neal Shusterman’s Arc of a Scythe trilogy, constitutions are tested and old friends are brought back from the dead.
I don’t know how to even start this review, because I have so many emotions still! I am so in love with this series. With this finale. I am also so sad that the journey ends here and I have to part ways, re-visiting these books but never reading new ones.
A wonderful world, where death is no more, and two scythe apprentices, with the willpower to be great - they stuck to me, and they grew on me, and they did capture my heart.
<b><i>Rowan - a hero never understood.</i></b>
Fighting for the good in a bad way. Himself against the world, not afraid to give his life for the people he cares about. I salute you, Scythe Lucifer!
<b><i>Citra - a woman born to be a leader.</i></b>
A powerful force that moves the Earth she walks upon. A compassion and kindness mixed with the force of unfairness. Ready to stand up when no one else does and not afraid to do things differently. I salute you, Scythe Anastasia.
And to all the rest of the characters, and believe me, there are so many that are just as important, I also bow to you. For fighting for what you believe in, for being better humans than most and for helping a person in need. You will never be forgotten.
<b><i>Neal Shusterman, the hero of this book.</i></b>
The creator of wonderful worlds. I bow to you and I thank you for giving me a world worth remembering. For creating the Thunderhead to lead us into the future, and for giving us a glimpse of possibilities and opportunities of the “what might be”. I have endless love for your writing and will continue to be excited and read every new book you write.
I have noticed, when I really love a book and want to shout about it to everyone I know, it is quite hard to do so without spilling any spoilers. How do you write a review of mentioning all the things you loved, without ruining the story for someone else?
<b><i>Let’s try it this way:</i></b>
Guys, have a look at my review of Scythe, the first book in the series. Then read the book. Then read my review of Thunderhead. Read that book as well. And then come here, read this blurb, finish the series and find me either here, or on Instagram and Twitter, so I can tell you all the spoilers! :)
No, honestly, if you love science-fiction with a twist of fantasy and dystopia, this will be a book you will cherish forever.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2656699288">Scythe</a>; - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998629500">Thunderhead</a>; - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3080800725">The Toll</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
And here is my review of The Toll. We have reached the end of the series, guys.
It’s been three years since Rowan and Citra disappeared; since Scythe Goddard came into power; since the Thunderhead closed itself off to everyone but Grayson Tolliver.
In this pulse-pounding conclusion to New York Times bestselling author Neal Shusterman’s Arc of a Scythe trilogy, constitutions are tested and old friends are brought back from the dead.
I don’t know how to even start this review, because I have so many emotions still! I am so in love with this series. With this finale. I am also so sad that the journey ends here and I have to part ways, re-visiting these books but never reading new ones.
A wonderful world, where death is no more, and two scythe apprentices, with the willpower to be great - they stuck to me, and they grew on me, and they did capture my heart.
<b><i>Rowan - a hero never understood.</i></b>
Fighting for the good in a bad way. Himself against the world, not afraid to give his life for the people he cares about. I salute you, Scythe Lucifer!
<b><i>Citra - a woman born to be a leader.</i></b>
A powerful force that moves the Earth she walks upon. A compassion and kindness mixed with the force of unfairness. Ready to stand up when no one else does and not afraid to do things differently. I salute you, Scythe Anastasia.
And to all the rest of the characters, and believe me, there are so many that are just as important, I also bow to you. For fighting for what you believe in, for being better humans than most and for helping a person in need. You will never be forgotten.
<b><i>Neal Shusterman, the hero of this book.</i></b>
The creator of wonderful worlds. I bow to you and I thank you for giving me a world worth remembering. For creating the Thunderhead to lead us into the future, and for giving us a glimpse of possibilities and opportunities of the “what might be”. I have endless love for your writing and will continue to be excited and read every new book you write.
I have noticed, when I really love a book and want to shout about it to everyone I know, it is quite hard to do so without spilling any spoilers. How do you write a review of mentioning all the things you loved, without ruining the story for someone else?
<b><i>Let’s try it this way:</i></b>
Guys, have a look at my review of Scythe, the first book in the series. Then read the book. Then read my review of Thunderhead. Read that book as well. And then come here, read this blurb, finish the series and find me either here, or on Instagram and Twitter, so I can tell you all the spoilers! :)
No, honestly, if you love science-fiction with a twist of fantasy and dystopia, this will be a book you will cherish forever.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.