Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
great many of us film aficionados have, at one time or another, thought that they’ve seen so many films from so many different genres or written by so many ‘messed up’ writers or directed by so many warped minds that have simply ‘walked off the map’ that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing could shock us. We think we’ve ‘seen everything’ or have been ‘prepared’ for anything shocking that filmmakers might throw our way. As today’s film for your consideration will demonstrate, even folks like ‘us’ can be caught off guard by the occasional ‘curve ball’ by a writer, director, or actor/actress we’ve become acquainted with through their work over the years. I can say this much before we go any further … I have never seen nor did I ever imagine seeing Jim Carrey in a film like this.
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
remember thinking, after reading the first couple of chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey two years ago, “Is this guy a vampire?” E.L. James’ description of Christian Grey brought to mind Edward of the Twilight series and the heroine, Anastasia Steele’s clumsy entrance into Grey’s office reminded me of Bella. I was so certain I would find out Grey was a vampire in the following chapters.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
What Did Jesus Drive?: Crisis PR in Cars, Computers and Christianity
Book
What Did Jesus Drive, Is mostly about crises in the car industry, but then it's so much bigger! It's...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Mar 13, 2021 (Updated Mar 15, 2021)
Come Fly With Me...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Fly, Directed by David Cronenberg, 1986
To the victor go the spoils. To the reader, go the spoilers.
We watched The Fly the other night. I observed, with fond amusement, that the energetic and quirky Jeff Goldblum always seems to star as himself. In this film, he plays a scientist named Seth Brundle. His offbeat handsomeness pairs well with the pale beauty of Geena Davis, who stars alongside him as journalist Veronica Quaife. As the two characters hit it off, I tried to ignore the fact that Goldblum’s character came off as somewhat creepy.
Then we were introduced to Veronica’s ex-boyfriend, who is also her boss. Stathis, played by John Getz, is unhinged. His performance was exaggerated, almost a caricature. He presents himself as the pinnacle alpha-male. Talk about a stalker. His attempts to control Veronica, and his jealousy, were epic. I commented that the scariest thing about this movie was Veronica’s ex. Little did I know what the rest of the film had in store.
Seth, an undiscovered genius, has invented a transporter. Seth shows Veronica how his invention works by transporting her stocking from one pod to another. Veronica wants to publish a story about it, but Seth insists that his technology is not ready. Seth and Veronica become involved, and she helps document his experiments.
Later, things get hairy. Naturally, they want to see if the pods are capable of transporting living beings. Instead of experimenting on a bug, or a mouse, or a smaller creature, they attempt to transport a full-sized monkey.
Suffice to say, things do not go well. Kudos to the special effects team for creating that pile of retch.
More modifications are made, and another monkey survives the transportation trip.
The romance grows between Seth and Veronica. I had a hard time buying into the chemistry between Goldblum and Davis. They both seemed a little distant. Regardless, the love story pushes forward. There is even talk of the pair going away together “like an old married couple.” Then Veronica’s boss throws a wrench in the mix. Veronica is forced to deal with his antics. Seth, who is also a bit of a jealous type, gets drunk and sends himself through the transporter, since the monkey seemed fine.
Then there comes the stuff of nightmares. Seth isn’t himself. He is immediately charged with manic energy. He performs quite an impressive gymnastics routine (thank you, stunt Goldblum).Veronica is clearly distraught that her boyfriend is losing it.
The physical metamorphosis begins. Seth develops weird, wiry hairs protruding from a cut on his back. His sex drive goes wonky, and when he alienates Veronica, he finds a random lady from a bar to sleep with. His complexion worsens dramatically. He discovers that his machine has melded his genetic information with the DNA of a fly that was in the pod of the transporter with him. THE DNA FUSED AT A MOLECULAR LEVEL. This, my dear viewers, is not good. Not the sort of thing you can get addressed at your nearest urgent care clinic.
Things get worse, and incredibly gross, from there. Fingernails fall off and bug juice oozes. The makeup and special effects departments did an extremely convincing job. I felt incredibly bad for this seemingly highly intelligent man. My boyfriend kept calling for a flame thrower.
Veronica tries to help, and is empathetic. But watching your newfound love deteriorate so rapidly, and being powerless to help, is extremely traumatic. Davis brought her A-game to this portion of the performance. And, true to the sci-fi soap opera plot, she discovers that she is pregnant with Seth’s baby.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you. But do you imagine this story ends well? I had hope. But it was squashed like a bug. If you have the stomach for good, old-fashioned movie gore, and you like Weird Science with a touch of Bad Romance, this film is for you.
To the victor go the spoils. To the reader, go the spoilers.
We watched The Fly the other night. I observed, with fond amusement, that the energetic and quirky Jeff Goldblum always seems to star as himself. In this film, he plays a scientist named Seth Brundle. His offbeat handsomeness pairs well with the pale beauty of Geena Davis, who stars alongside him as journalist Veronica Quaife. As the two characters hit it off, I tried to ignore the fact that Goldblum’s character came off as somewhat creepy.
Then we were introduced to Veronica’s ex-boyfriend, who is also her boss. Stathis, played by John Getz, is unhinged. His performance was exaggerated, almost a caricature. He presents himself as the pinnacle alpha-male. Talk about a stalker. His attempts to control Veronica, and his jealousy, were epic. I commented that the scariest thing about this movie was Veronica’s ex. Little did I know what the rest of the film had in store.
Seth, an undiscovered genius, has invented a transporter. Seth shows Veronica how his invention works by transporting her stocking from one pod to another. Veronica wants to publish a story about it, but Seth insists that his technology is not ready. Seth and Veronica become involved, and she helps document his experiments.
Later, things get hairy. Naturally, they want to see if the pods are capable of transporting living beings. Instead of experimenting on a bug, or a mouse, or a smaller creature, they attempt to transport a full-sized monkey.
Suffice to say, things do not go well. Kudos to the special effects team for creating that pile of retch.
More modifications are made, and another monkey survives the transportation trip.
The romance grows between Seth and Veronica. I had a hard time buying into the chemistry between Goldblum and Davis. They both seemed a little distant. Regardless, the love story pushes forward. There is even talk of the pair going away together “like an old married couple.” Then Veronica’s boss throws a wrench in the mix. Veronica is forced to deal with his antics. Seth, who is also a bit of a jealous type, gets drunk and sends himself through the transporter, since the monkey seemed fine.
Then there comes the stuff of nightmares. Seth isn’t himself. He is immediately charged with manic energy. He performs quite an impressive gymnastics routine (thank you, stunt Goldblum).Veronica is clearly distraught that her boyfriend is losing it.
The physical metamorphosis begins. Seth develops weird, wiry hairs protruding from a cut on his back. His sex drive goes wonky, and when he alienates Veronica, he finds a random lady from a bar to sleep with. His complexion worsens dramatically. He discovers that his machine has melded his genetic information with the DNA of a fly that was in the pod of the transporter with him. THE DNA FUSED AT A MOLECULAR LEVEL. This, my dear viewers, is not good. Not the sort of thing you can get addressed at your nearest urgent care clinic.
Things get worse, and incredibly gross, from there. Fingernails fall off and bug juice oozes. The makeup and special effects departments did an extremely convincing job. I felt incredibly bad for this seemingly highly intelligent man. My boyfriend kept calling for a flame thrower.
Veronica tries to help, and is empathetic. But watching your newfound love deteriorate so rapidly, and being powerless to help, is extremely traumatic. Davis brought her A-game to this portion of the performance. And, true to the sci-fi soap opera plot, she discovers that she is pregnant with Seth’s baby.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you. But do you imagine this story ends well? I had hope. But it was squashed like a bug. If you have the stomach for good, old-fashioned movie gore, and you like Weird Science with a touch of Bad Romance, this film is for you.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 20, 2021
Writing and directing is pitch perfect (1 more)
Carey Mulligan - awesome acting
Emerald Fennell delivers a real ‘page turner’ of a movie
"Promising Young Woman" sees Cassie (Carrie Mulligan) out to wage war on predatory men sexually asserting themselves on vulnerable woman in bars. But with the chance mention of a name, her mission takes on a whole new level and becomes very personal. How far will Carrie go to right a wrong?
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Story of Silence in Books
Jun 17, 2021
An Arthurian tale, adapted from a 13th century lost poem, containing dragons and knights but tackling the fluid notion of gender? Sign me up! Literally! Thank you to Eidelweiss+ and HarperVoyager for the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Winter Duke in Books
Oct 13, 2020
A duchy of ice and snow above, a duchy of water and magic below, separated only by a lake of ice. Both dependent upon one another and both as violent as they are beautiful.
Ekata is a middle child within the Avenko royal family: a family who are intent on murdering each other to get to the throne. However, Ekata has no interest in the throne at all: her interests lie in biology rather than brokering treaties and she wants nothing more than to leave Kylma Above and attend university.
However, at the age of thirteen, Ekata wakes to find herself the only member of her family who has not been cursed into a permanent sleep. Suddenly, she is the Grand Duke and is expected to prove herself worthy to rule Kylma Above: conquering the world of politics and magic in order to find a way to wake her family and avoid death herself.
The Winter Duke spans only six days in its storyline. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the journey that Bartlett takes her readers on: there are twists at every turn and almost everyone seems like a villain; neither Ekata nor the reader knows whom they can trust.
Although this is very much Ekata’s story, there are so many characters surrounding her that there is a danger some of these may seem undeveloped. Thankfully, I didn’t feel this way at all. Bartlett brings something different to each character she introduces: from Sigis’ immediate repulsiveness; Eirhan’s deadpan nature and Inkar’s flirty charms. All the characters have their part to play and, although keeping track of all the ministers could be difficult at times, this only added to the overwhelming suffocation that Ekata must be feeling.
Ekata herself is an amazing protagonist: at just thirteen she makes a number of impulsive decisions which end disastrously – so why do we, as a reader, not get frustrated with her? Again, I feel that this is due, in part, to the dizzying number of secondary characters. The reader witnesses the sheer number of commitments that fall onto the shoulders of one who never aspired to this role: we attend unwanted proposals; hear the accusations of murdering her own family; comprehend that she is used as a pawn by her Prime Minister and constantly see Ekata’s authority undermined due to her sex. It is impossible not to empathise with her desperate need to return to her normal life.
Sexism plays a large part in Ekata’s story, with Sigis immediately heralded as the solution to her problems due to his position as a strong man with an army. Inkar is also underestimated due to being female: before she then shatters these perceptions with her axes, her willingness to fight and her protective nature over Ekata.
However, The Winter Duke has to be commended for the gender fluidity within its pages. The brideshow is made of men and women, at least one minister is non-binary and the only romance within this novel is between two queer females. This was such a natural romance as well, slow-burning and cautious due to the politics involved but one that, when the walls of both women came down, could achieve the impossible.
The world building by Claire Eliza Bartlett in this novel is second to none. Kylma Above is impressive with its ice palaces and winter roses invading every corner. However, Kylma Below, the duchy below the ice is magical and sinister in equal measure. With fields of magic, sharks used in tribunals, and coral gardens, it wasn’t only Ekata who wanted to explore further.
Quite a few YA novels recently have included queer women smashing the patriarchy. This is the first one I have read where they smash the autocracy.
Ekata’s journey to find out what kind of ruler she will be is encapsulating and riveting. In a story where the betrayal just keeps coming, Ekata remains loyal to the end – despite the epilogue proving that this is never appreciated. The world of Kylma was immersive and the themes of politics, murder, sexism and violence are swept up by the breezy writing style to create a book that was impossible to put down.
Thank you to Netgalley for giving me the opportunity to read and review this wonderful novel.
Ekata is a middle child within the Avenko royal family: a family who are intent on murdering each other to get to the throne. However, Ekata has no interest in the throne at all: her interests lie in biology rather than brokering treaties and she wants nothing more than to leave Kylma Above and attend university.
However, at the age of thirteen, Ekata wakes to find herself the only member of her family who has not been cursed into a permanent sleep. Suddenly, she is the Grand Duke and is expected to prove herself worthy to rule Kylma Above: conquering the world of politics and magic in order to find a way to wake her family and avoid death herself.
The Winter Duke spans only six days in its storyline. Nonetheless, this does not diminish the journey that Bartlett takes her readers on: there are twists at every turn and almost everyone seems like a villain; neither Ekata nor the reader knows whom they can trust.
Although this is very much Ekata’s story, there are so many characters surrounding her that there is a danger some of these may seem undeveloped. Thankfully, I didn’t feel this way at all. Bartlett brings something different to each character she introduces: from Sigis’ immediate repulsiveness; Eirhan’s deadpan nature and Inkar’s flirty charms. All the characters have their part to play and, although keeping track of all the ministers could be difficult at times, this only added to the overwhelming suffocation that Ekata must be feeling.
Ekata herself is an amazing protagonist: at just thirteen she makes a number of impulsive decisions which end disastrously – so why do we, as a reader, not get frustrated with her? Again, I feel that this is due, in part, to the dizzying number of secondary characters. The reader witnesses the sheer number of commitments that fall onto the shoulders of one who never aspired to this role: we attend unwanted proposals; hear the accusations of murdering her own family; comprehend that she is used as a pawn by her Prime Minister and constantly see Ekata’s authority undermined due to her sex. It is impossible not to empathise with her desperate need to return to her normal life.
Sexism plays a large part in Ekata’s story, with Sigis immediately heralded as the solution to her problems due to his position as a strong man with an army. Inkar is also underestimated due to being female: before she then shatters these perceptions with her axes, her willingness to fight and her protective nature over Ekata.
However, The Winter Duke has to be commended for the gender fluidity within its pages. The brideshow is made of men and women, at least one minister is non-binary and the only romance within this novel is between two queer females. This was such a natural romance as well, slow-burning and cautious due to the politics involved but one that, when the walls of both women came down, could achieve the impossible.
The world building by Claire Eliza Bartlett in this novel is second to none. Kylma Above is impressive with its ice palaces and winter roses invading every corner. However, Kylma Below, the duchy below the ice is magical and sinister in equal measure. With fields of magic, sharks used in tribunals, and coral gardens, it wasn’t only Ekata who wanted to explore further.
Quite a few YA novels recently have included queer women smashing the patriarchy. This is the first one I have read where they smash the autocracy.
Ekata’s journey to find out what kind of ruler she will be is encapsulating and riveting. In a story where the betrayal just keeps coming, Ekata remains loyal to the end – despite the epilogue proving that this is never appreciated. The world of Kylma was immersive and the themes of politics, murder, sexism and violence are swept up by the breezy writing style to create a book that was impossible to put down.
Thank you to Netgalley for giving me the opportunity to read and review this wonderful novel.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!