Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
If you are looking for a refreshing Young-Adult read, with college unlike any other - this is the perfect book for you. I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You is the first book from the Gallagher Girl series, where we meet girls that go to a school for spies, and nobody except them, knows it.
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Face in the Mountain in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The Face in the Mountain </i>is a children’s picture book written by Tolulope Okudolo as part of the publishing company <i>Magnifying Children’s Horizons</i> vision of developing a world in which children learn about and appreciate nature.
The story is set in the fictional world of Vomper Creek where there is always an abundance of natural activity – that is if tree elves, giants and fairies count as “natural”. Papa and Boma are the only giants living in this area and are responsible for making sure nature does everything it is supposed to do. In fact it was Papa who built the mountains in this region to begin with. However Papa is old, frail and tired after working for over two hundred years. He needs to sleep for a century to regain his energy, thus leaving Boma, at a mere seven years of age, to take on all the important tasks.
So begins the main part of the story: Boma is scared and convinced he is unable to remember Papa’s instructions and tries to hide from all his duties. Without his help nature will not be able to function properly. Inspired by an artist he spies in the woods, Boma carves his father’s face into the side of one of the mountains so that he can always see it. This makes him feel less alone and he is able to complete all his jobs to perfection.
The purpose of this book is to help children discover the inner workings of nature and recognize that many things are connected together. For example the wind is needed to blow the seeds into places where they can sprout, then the rain, sun and soil provide the nutrients the plant needs to grow.
At the end of the story is <i>A Children’s Guide to Natural Beings</i>. This is essentially a glossary of the mythical beings featured in the book. The only issue with this is that calling them “natural beings” implies that they are real whereas there is no concrete evidence of their existence. This could give children the wrong impression about the way nature works.
The final pages of the book include a list of learning activities and discussion questions. These could be attempted in schools, in book clubs or at home with parents as a way for children to experience nature for themselves and examine the meaning of the story and the ways in which they can relate it to their own lives.
Eric Scott Fisher beautifully illustrates the book with realistic drawings that are appropriate for children of all ages. Yet there is a slight publishing issue in that the illustrations and body text do not work together. In some instances the text is overlaid on a picture, which makes it difficult to read.
The reading age of this book is approximately seven to ten year olds however younger children will be able to understand it if it is read to them by an adult. The storyline is not that strong but hopefully its purpose – to educate children about nature – will shine through the narrative.
The Face in the Mountain </i>is a children’s picture book written by Tolulope Okudolo as part of the publishing company <i>Magnifying Children’s Horizons</i> vision of developing a world in which children learn about and appreciate nature.
The story is set in the fictional world of Vomper Creek where there is always an abundance of natural activity – that is if tree elves, giants and fairies count as “natural”. Papa and Boma are the only giants living in this area and are responsible for making sure nature does everything it is supposed to do. In fact it was Papa who built the mountains in this region to begin with. However Papa is old, frail and tired after working for over two hundred years. He needs to sleep for a century to regain his energy, thus leaving Boma, at a mere seven years of age, to take on all the important tasks.
So begins the main part of the story: Boma is scared and convinced he is unable to remember Papa’s instructions and tries to hide from all his duties. Without his help nature will not be able to function properly. Inspired by an artist he spies in the woods, Boma carves his father’s face into the side of one of the mountains so that he can always see it. This makes him feel less alone and he is able to complete all his jobs to perfection.
The purpose of this book is to help children discover the inner workings of nature and recognize that many things are connected together. For example the wind is needed to blow the seeds into places where they can sprout, then the rain, sun and soil provide the nutrients the plant needs to grow.
At the end of the story is <i>A Children’s Guide to Natural Beings</i>. This is essentially a glossary of the mythical beings featured in the book. The only issue with this is that calling them “natural beings” implies that they are real whereas there is no concrete evidence of their existence. This could give children the wrong impression about the way nature works.
The final pages of the book include a list of learning activities and discussion questions. These could be attempted in schools, in book clubs or at home with parents as a way for children to experience nature for themselves and examine the meaning of the story and the ways in which they can relate it to their own lives.
Eric Scott Fisher beautifully illustrates the book with realistic drawings that are appropriate for children of all ages. Yet there is a slight publishing issue in that the illustrations and body text do not work together. In some instances the text is overlaid on a picture, which makes it difficult to read.
The reading age of this book is approximately seven to ten year olds however younger children will be able to understand it if it is read to them by an adult. The storyline is not that strong but hopefully its purpose – to educate children about nature – will shine through the narrative.
Those Conspiracy Guys
Podcast
Those Conspiracy Guys is a weekly podcast where we discuss all types and genres of conspiracy...
David McK (3358 KP) rated Blood's Game in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Like, I'm sure, many others, my first exposure to the writings of [a:Angus Donald|584064|Angus Donald|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] was when I picked up [b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139] on sale: a novel which reimagined the familiar character of Robin Hood, and which I thoroughly enjoyed: so much so that I made it a point to pick up all the novels in that series ([b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139], [b:Holy Warrior|7710240|Holy Warrior (The Outlaw Chronicles, #2)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327539941s/7710240.jpg|10428506], [b:King's Man|11351795|King's Man (The Outlaw Chronicles, #3)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328436464s/11351795.jpg|16281574], [b:Warlord|13077584|Warlord (The Outlaw Chronicles, #4)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1342984405s/13077584.jpg|18244685], [b:Grail Knight|20613734|Grail Knight (The Outlaw Chronicles #5)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1410172817s/20613734.jpg|21976159], [b:The Iron Castle|19857964|The Iron Castle (Outlaw Chronicles, #6)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1402550564s/19857964.jpg|27860558] and (finally) [b:The Death of Robin Hood|29348050|The Death of Robin Hood (The Outlaw Chronicles, #8)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1467543641s/29348050.jpg|49585935]).
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Two Worlds of Geratica Volume 2: The Mistress of Geratica in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Two Worlds of Geratica Volume 2: The Mistress of Geratica by Anne Hampton is a wonderful follow up to the first Volume. There is some overlap between this book and the first as this one starts ten years earlier then Volume 1. It also gets caught up to modern times quickly so this time change isnt too much of a problem. Once again it is important to remember that Geratica and its parallel, Geraticai, are similar to Earth but no the same place and the people who live there are not human.
Geratica is facing a time of political and economic turmoil due to the increasing number of radical thinkers in the realm. They are also in danger of spies from Geraticai who want to be their own world and not just a parallel of Geratica. As things reach a breaking point The Mistress of Geratica comes forward to aid in setting things right again. Sadly even that doesn't fix things right away.
Linda has a hard time getting bills passed through Parliament and Alexandras boyfriend, Tom, is caught in a compromising position. Alexandra finds herself gaining confidence as her own woman and makes some very big decisions for not only herself but for Geratica as a whole. It is questionable though if Geratica can survive the strikes and civil unrest and form a way to keep both the radicals and convinces happy. At the same time, the government in Geraticai keeps changing so fast it is hard to keep track of who is in charge at any given time. Eventually, Geraticai goes to war. To say the least, things are not going good for the two worlds of Geratica.
What I liked best was that in my review of the first book I complained that the second world (Geraticai) didnt play a big part in the story yet this book fixed that entirely. The two worlds become intertwined in this book in such a way that it is deserving of its title. I almost regret my statement about the first book. What I didnt like so much was that towards the ending I got very confused about Fiona and Robert. Without giving anything away their relationship with each other and the Mistress was good in concept but did not make since to me very well as to why things worked out the way they did.
Once again I suggest a mature audience for this book. It is still geared more towards a mostly female audience but some men may find it interesting as well. There was still quite a bit of sexual content and politics so reader beware. This book deserves a rating of 4 out of 4 just like the first one. It could still use to be edited a little bit better but for the most part, I can not complain (and who am I to make a judgment on editing). The balanced time the author spends talking about each world prevents either one from getting too much attention. Overall an excellent book once more.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/two-worlds-geratica-volume-2-mistress-geratica
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Worlds-Geratica-Mistress-ebook/dp/B0757885C8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=two+worlds+of+geratica&qid=1573435323&sr=8-3
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Geratica is facing a time of political and economic turmoil due to the increasing number of radical thinkers in the realm. They are also in danger of spies from Geraticai who want to be their own world and not just a parallel of Geratica. As things reach a breaking point The Mistress of Geratica comes forward to aid in setting things right again. Sadly even that doesn't fix things right away.
Linda has a hard time getting bills passed through Parliament and Alexandras boyfriend, Tom, is caught in a compromising position. Alexandra finds herself gaining confidence as her own woman and makes some very big decisions for not only herself but for Geratica as a whole. It is questionable though if Geratica can survive the strikes and civil unrest and form a way to keep both the radicals and convinces happy. At the same time, the government in Geraticai keeps changing so fast it is hard to keep track of who is in charge at any given time. Eventually, Geraticai goes to war. To say the least, things are not going good for the two worlds of Geratica.
What I liked best was that in my review of the first book I complained that the second world (Geraticai) didnt play a big part in the story yet this book fixed that entirely. The two worlds become intertwined in this book in such a way that it is deserving of its title. I almost regret my statement about the first book. What I didnt like so much was that towards the ending I got very confused about Fiona and Robert. Without giving anything away their relationship with each other and the Mistress was good in concept but did not make since to me very well as to why things worked out the way they did.
Once again I suggest a mature audience for this book. It is still geared more towards a mostly female audience but some men may find it interesting as well. There was still quite a bit of sexual content and politics so reader beware. This book deserves a rating of 4 out of 4 just like the first one. It could still use to be edited a little bit better but for the most part, I can not complain (and who am I to make a judgment on editing). The balanced time the author spends talking about each world prevents either one from getting too much attention. Overall an excellent book once more.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/two-worlds-geratica-volume-2-mistress-geratica
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Worlds-Geratica-Mistress-ebook/dp/B0757885C8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=two+worlds+of+geratica&qid=1573435323&sr=8-3
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
As my last cinema visit of 2019 I was just hoping for something passable to watch, animation his year has had a few hard knocks so I wasn't optimistic.
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
Art Of War By Sun Tzu
Business and Education
App
We have fixed formatting issues and are re-introducing Art Of War For Free with the bug fixes. ...
Canada's History Magazine
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Discover Canadian history as you’ve never seen it before - the stuff with the guts and glory, the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.