Search
Search results
The Eternal Series - Box Set Books 1 to 4
6.0
Rate It
Book
FOUR BOOKS… PLUS TWO SHORT STORIES Eternal Covenant Eternity Never Looked This Good Cassie...
Paranormal Romance Boxset
Kandy Entertainment Magazine
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Welcome to Kandy Magazine - America's choice for a men's magazine. Made in the USA. Who loves...
IntelliDrink PRO - Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
IntelliDrink is a sophisticated blood alcohol content (BAC) calculator. It has a simple user...
Bloodlust (The Rise Of Iliri #1)
5.0
Rate It
Book
"Bloodlust, and the Rise of the Iliri series as a whole, will blow you mind, break your heart, and...
Young adult Vampire Vampyre Ilirri Young adult Teen
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sweetheart (2021) in Movies
Sep 20, 2021
Great ensemble cast (1 more)
Sensitive and moving writing by Marley Morrison
A Gregory's Girl for the 21st Century
When I was in my late teen's, Bill Forsyth's "Gregory's Girl" perfectly epitomised the angst of the school years' emotions I'd left behind me. And I was very much heterosexual. With "Sweetheart", Marley Morrison in an astonishing feature debut delivers a "Gregory's Girl" for today's much more sexually fluid times.
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Poorly written (2 more)
Not intersectional
Lack of sources in the physical version
Mediocre essays, I wish I could've liked this more
Disappointment and shallow is probably the most apt descriptions I can think of when describing this book which is really sad because I usually enjoy feminist essays.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)