I am a big fan of movies. I am a big fan of baseball. So, inevitably, I get asked what my favorite baseball movie is - and my answer surprises many. Beyond a doubt, my favorite baseball movie is the 1992 comedy A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, directed by Penny Marshall and starring Geena Davis and Tom Hanks.
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When the whole Disney “broaden out the Star Wars universe” thing was first mooted I was NOT enthusiastic about the prospect. Then, in Christmas 2016 “Rogue One” burst onto our screens as a breath of fresh air, and I thought “OK, I can be wrong!”. But even jolted by that pleasant surprise, I always thought that the second proposed diversion off the main hyperspace highway into “Radiator Springs” – a Han Solo back-story flick – might fall short. It just didn’t float my boat.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to “The Lego Movie” directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a ‘comedy’; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (“Inferno“, “Rush“) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But that’s off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han… just Han… as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who – no pun intended – keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con that’s lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke, “Me Before You“; “Terminator: Genisys“; “Game of Thrones”) off-planet and into a free life. Things don’t go to plan though and Han – now Han Solo – finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“; “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri“), Val (Thandie Newton, “Westworld”, “2012”), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“; “Iron Man Three“) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, “Avengers: Infinity War“).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John William’s empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Han’s first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that “card player, gambler and scoundrel” Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, “The Martian“, “Spider-Man: Homecoming“): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while you’re sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably haven’t heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han “who shot first” debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powell’s score, incorporating a new ‘young Han’ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall it’s all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the film’s opening….. BAM! No exquisite ‘reveal’ as we saw with River Phoenix in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. “Rogue One” did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as ‘Episode 3.5’. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasn’t that a throwaway C3PO line from the “A New Hope” about being “smashed to who knows what” in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY that’s where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being “spice”! It’s all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, don’t get me started on the timeline implications…. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in “Hail Caesar” (“Was that it t’WERRRE so simple“) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Ford’s Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screen…. “Me Before You” still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and “meh”.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
What makes a film stand the test of time? How do you create a movie that will have the same impact today as it will fifty years from now? That’s almost how long it’s been since The Godfather was released. Can you believe that? It was a classic then and still remains to be so. It follows the story of the Corleone family, a prominent mob family in New York. Michael (Al Pacino), youngest son of Godfather Vito (Marlon Brando), is trying to stay away from the “family business” but finds himself thrust right in the middle after a mob war erupts.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Last year audiences got a glimpse into a future America where crime, unemployment, and other social factors were at an all-time low. The cost for such radical social transformation was an annual Purge where for 12 hours; all crimes including murder are legal.
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
Those four words were always going to make a long-time Discworld reader feel quite emotional, making it hard to objectively review the novel itself: are you reviewing this last peek into Pratchett's mirror reality, or are you reviewing the entire 41-book series? I'm going to try both:
THE SERIES
The first Disworld book I read (I'm pretty sure it was [b: Pyramids|64217|Pyramids (Discworld, #7)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1439098306s/64217.jpg|968512]) wasn't actually the first in the series (that would be [b: The Colour of Magic|833512|The Colour of Magic The Illustrated Screenplay|Vadim Jean|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347346368s/833512.jpg|17589693]), although I did later go back and read the earlier works. Reading them in order released (as opposed to one of the numerous Discworld Reading Order Guides: I'm quite partial to the 'Unofficial Discworld Reading Order Guide'), you can see how Terry Pratchett's writing style evolved, how he moved from outright satire to a more subtle comedy fantasy that holds a mirror up to real-world issues. Personally, I feel he was at his best at around the mid-way point of the series (say, [b: Maskerade|64305|Maskerade The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1170622047s/64305.jpg|62427] or [b: Men at Arms|7557548|Men at Arms The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1353573652s/7557548.jpg|9910828], after he'd found his feet (so-to-speak), but before the 'embuggerance' of his posterior cortical atrophy set in and the novels - perhaps understandably - started becoming almost too serious.
Throughout the series, there was a rich tapestry of characters introduced, from CMOT Dibbler through to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, with certain groups of characters (e.g. The City Watch) effectively becoming a sub-series in their own right. One of those groups - Granny Weatherwax (first introduced in [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611] and The Witches of Lancre (first introduced in [b: Wyrd Sisters|233664|Wyrd Sisters The Play|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388363090s/233664.jpg|17589683] - would later themselves have 'guest spots' in another group of such characters, ostensibly written for Young Adult Readers but still very enjoyable for older; the Nac Mac Feegles (Crivens!) and Tiffany Aching, both of who first appeared in [b: The Wee Free Men|7881001|The Wee Free Men The Beginning (Discworld, #30 & #32)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388181365s/7881001.jpg|22017239]. Which nicely brings me to:
THE NOVEL ITSELF
'The Shepherd's Crown' sees a return of both Tiffany Aching, now a young Witch setting out on her career path, and those Nac Mac Feegles. There's a strong sense of change throughout, kicked off by the surprising early exit of a previous major character in the entire series, leading to old foes - the Elves - to try to make their way back into the world. These Elves, remember, are *not* the dainty do-gooders of Tolkien: these are nasty, malicious, self-serving creatures who last attempted to invade in [b: Lords and Ladies|34529|Lords and Ladies (Discworld, #14; Witches #4)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1469186110s/34529.jpg|1185086], before eventually being defeated by Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg and Magrat Garlik. Those three characters make a return in this, as well as bit-parts for the Arch-Chancellor of Unseen University, Ponder Stibbons (and HEX) alongside King Verence and the Patrician. Despite all these, the novel, however, is really Tiffany's story, and of how she finds her feet in the circumstances into which she is rather abruptly thrown. There's also a plot element that recalls [b: Equal Rites|34507|Equal Rites (Discworld, #3; Witches, #1)|Terry Pratchett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1407706800s/34507.jpg|583611]: that of a person wanting to do a role that is generally considered to be that for a member of the opposite sex.
As always, footnotes are present and correct, with the novel even raising a few laugh-out-loud moments. While the story does finish with the words 'THE END', the world itself will continue on: all that has come to an end is our ability to peek into it.
In the words of the Nac Mac Feegle: "Waily waily waily ..."
Rating for the series: 5*
Rating for the novel: 4*
t is said that time is money and in the new film “In Time” this statement takes on an entirely new meaning. In the future we learn that humans have been genetically created to stop aging at the age of 25. Once they reach this selected age, a clock starts to count down from one year. People can obtain more time via work, stealing it from others, or being gifted more time but once their clock hits zero, they expire or “Time Out” as it is called.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
‘Graffiti and scorch marks, echoes of small fires, decorated doorsteps. Golden Special Brew cans and crushed vodka bottles, bright as diamonds, collected in gutters. Front gardens were filled with mouldy paddling pools and, occasionally, a rust burnished shell of a car. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so many colours, before in grey Aberdeen.’
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules? This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. This Secret We’re Keeping is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
This Secret We’re Keeping causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, This Secret We’re Keeping can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, This Secret We’re Keeping was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. This Secret We’re Keeping is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
I had watched over half of this film before someone mentioned to me it was part of the Unbreakable "trilogy". I had heard of Glass, and had noticed that McAvoy looked similar in the two films but hadn't realised they were linked (I guess I assumed he got bored of growing his hair back to then have to become Professor X again). I had wondered what the second film in the trilogy was. Unbeknownst to me, I was watching it.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
Ethan Hawke is no stranger to the horror genre, in 2009 he starred in the Australian vampire flick Daybreakers, a film which promised so much, and delivered relatively little. Now he teams up with director James DeMonaco in a horror film that promises to be anything but ordinary; The Purge, but can it live up to its exciting trailer?
The Purge plays out like a poor-man’s Hunger Games. In the year 2020, America is prospering, crime is at an all-time low and unemployment is at 1%. The reason? Once a year, for twelve hours, all crime is legal and people across US can commit any atrocities they wish.
Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin, a security salesman who has capitalised on the public’s fear of being ‘purged’ by selling hi-tech safety equipment to the rich to ensure they stay safe. Lena Headey plays his wife Mary and his two children, Charlie and Zoe are played by Max Burkholder and Adelaide Kane respectively. In a moment of madness after the commencement of the annual purge, a ‘target’ (Edwin Hodge) is let into their home causing all hell to break loose.
Borrowing heavily from other ‘home invasion’ horror films such as When a Stranger Calls and The Strangers, The Purge really ‘gets going’ about two-thirds in when an army of killers swoop on Ethan Hawke’s impressive property looking for their ‘target.’ The family have one hour to reply before they all become ‘targets.’
Unfortunately, an exciting and unique premise is completely lost in a film that is riddled with many horror clichés, some of them blatantly obvious, (woman opening fridge door, door closes and harmless child shocks woman), some not so obvious. This is a terrible shame as the idea of all crime being legal is ridiculously exciting, but after about 40 minutes, we are locked in the Sandin’s home as they play cat and mouse with an array of forgettable serial killers and the original story is lost.
Another problem is the acting. Competent is the only word to describe it; Ethan Hawke is good in his role and his stern demeanour which has earned him so many acting jobs in the past is in full force here, but you can’t help feeling he was a budgetary decision rather than being who the producers actually wanted. Lena Headey seems to phone in a rather wooden performance, whilst the two kids do marginally better. By far the stand-out here is Rhys Wakefield, credited only as ‘Polite Stranger’ who is excellent and terrifying as equal measure; his facial expressions are enough to make you wince.
Overall, The Purge is an exciting film that delivers some unique thrills and spills mixed in with the usual horror clichés. Unfortunately, it doesn’t deliver on its unique and exciting starting point and delves into a generic slasher film around 45 minutes in. A stand-out performance from one of the cast isn’t enough to lift the acting above mediocre and the Sandin family are as characters, frightfully dull. It’s definitely worth a watch, but don’t let the trailer fool you; it’s not as unique as you might expect.
The new review system breaks down the film into categories allowing you, as the readers to see just where I have awarded points to the film. It is still in a testing stage, so if there are any categories you think could improve it, please let me know.
