Search
Search results
TheBookMother (105 KP) rated The Memory Keeper's Daughter in Books
Jun 6, 2019
Hauntingly Beautiful
This came into the charity shop I work in and as soon as I read the blurb on the back of the book I knew I had to read it.
A Doctor in a snow storm delivers his twins but one is born with Down Syndrome and he decides there and then to tell his wife that she died. He hands over his daughter to the nurse and asks her to take her to a home. She decides upon seeing the home she cannot possibly leave her here and raises her herself.
The book follows through time the lives of everyone the Doctor and his wife raising there son Paul, and the Nurse Caroline fighting for Phoebe to be accepted and have access to an education and equal opportunities.
It starts of in the 60s and we really get a glimpse into the attitudes of the time towards those with Down Syndrome and at times it is awkward to read at times as you cannot believe that it was like this.
With such a explosive secret being kept and the grief that Norah feels after thinking she has lost a child the family is poisoned and relationships turn toxic and the family dynamic is ripped apart.
We see Phoebe thrive throughout her life with Caroline and also the limitations she faces in her day to day life.
The emotive language the author uses means you do feel Norah's loss, you resent David for his betrayal, you can understand Paul's rebellion and Caroline's guilt.
It is an achingly beautiful book which is dealing with an explosively emotive storyline. I really enjoyed it and it is really hauntingly staying with me even after I've finished as I began to imagine how I would feel and what I would do if I was put in that situation. A really good read, possibly to emotionally charged for a sleep deprived and hormonal mother of two boys, one of which does have medical issues do I could relate somewhat too.
A Doctor in a snow storm delivers his twins but one is born with Down Syndrome and he decides there and then to tell his wife that she died. He hands over his daughter to the nurse and asks her to take her to a home. She decides upon seeing the home she cannot possibly leave her here and raises her herself.
The book follows through time the lives of everyone the Doctor and his wife raising there son Paul, and the Nurse Caroline fighting for Phoebe to be accepted and have access to an education and equal opportunities.
It starts of in the 60s and we really get a glimpse into the attitudes of the time towards those with Down Syndrome and at times it is awkward to read at times as you cannot believe that it was like this.
With such a explosive secret being kept and the grief that Norah feels after thinking she has lost a child the family is poisoned and relationships turn toxic and the family dynamic is ripped apart.
We see Phoebe thrive throughout her life with Caroline and also the limitations she faces in her day to day life.
The emotive language the author uses means you do feel Norah's loss, you resent David for his betrayal, you can understand Paul's rebellion and Caroline's guilt.
It is an achingly beautiful book which is dealing with an explosively emotive storyline. I really enjoyed it and it is really hauntingly staying with me even after I've finished as I began to imagine how I would feel and what I would do if I was put in that situation. A really good read, possibly to emotionally charged for a sleep deprived and hormonal mother of two boys, one of which does have medical issues do I could relate somewhat too.
Johnny Marr recommended Velvet Underground by The Velvet Underground in Music (curated)
Think Big (The Live Big Series #3)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Set in the wilds of the African savanna, Think Big follows moody Baboon as he discovers another...
Animals
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trolls World Tour (2019) in Movies
Jun 8, 2020
Trolls World Tour, or the film that kicked off the Home Premiere debacle... I decided to pay money for this, a lot of money for just one person to watch, and all because I wanted to see something brand new.
Life in the village is going great, but when a bat flies in with a message for Queen Poppy the tune changes. Poppy's eternal enthusiasm means she doesn't want to see the potential danger that's on its way... because evidently she learned nothing in the last movie... When Barb from the Hard Rock trolls starts conquering all the other villages it's down to a few determined trolls to come to the rescue.
The first thing that struck me was that this would have been so much better on the big screen, the impact of all the explosive glitter and sparkle is lost in the home setting. That's entirely a me point though, surround me visually with all that song and glitter and you'll mesmerise me but on the small screen it doesn't have the same wow to it.
I had one thing that kept popping up in my head throughout the film, and that was how on earth do they not know that these other places exist when they're so close together? Especially as in the last film the Bergens meant they had to discover more around their village... which leads to the next thought of, if the Bergens love trolls so much then how haven't they discovered the others either... but this could be a slippery slope.
If you ignore that continuity then the plot isn't bad, classic good versus evil with a logical reasoning behind the events. The only issue it that there are a lot of new characters and ideas to deal with. I still don't know some of the names from the original characters! Evidently it's Cooper and not "giraffe" as I kept having to put in my notes every time.
I love all the different styles of music that World Tour collects together but it does feel like there's a bias against the Classical trolls. I didn't sit and count all the trolls to get percentages but it feels like they aren't seen as much as the others at times. There's a good mix on genres with the new trolls and I particularly liked the bounty hunters, it was a funny addition to the lineup.
The acting and the script is pretty much what you'd expect but I don't think it has the same spark as the first film. There are tangents that seem unnecessary and fleeting moments that had potential but were glitter glued over almost as soon as they presented themselves. Even though it felt like it missed some good opportunities and didn't shine as bright as the first, I know that kids will still love this one.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trolls-world-tour-movie-review.html
Life in the village is going great, but when a bat flies in with a message for Queen Poppy the tune changes. Poppy's eternal enthusiasm means she doesn't want to see the potential danger that's on its way... because evidently she learned nothing in the last movie... When Barb from the Hard Rock trolls starts conquering all the other villages it's down to a few determined trolls to come to the rescue.
The first thing that struck me was that this would have been so much better on the big screen, the impact of all the explosive glitter and sparkle is lost in the home setting. That's entirely a me point though, surround me visually with all that song and glitter and you'll mesmerise me but on the small screen it doesn't have the same wow to it.
I had one thing that kept popping up in my head throughout the film, and that was how on earth do they not know that these other places exist when they're so close together? Especially as in the last film the Bergens meant they had to discover more around their village... which leads to the next thought of, if the Bergens love trolls so much then how haven't they discovered the others either... but this could be a slippery slope.
If you ignore that continuity then the plot isn't bad, classic good versus evil with a logical reasoning behind the events. The only issue it that there are a lot of new characters and ideas to deal with. I still don't know some of the names from the original characters! Evidently it's Cooper and not "giraffe" as I kept having to put in my notes every time.
I love all the different styles of music that World Tour collects together but it does feel like there's a bias against the Classical trolls. I didn't sit and count all the trolls to get percentages but it feels like they aren't seen as much as the others at times. There's a good mix on genres with the new trolls and I particularly liked the bounty hunters, it was a funny addition to the lineup.
The acting and the script is pretty much what you'd expect but I don't think it has the same spark as the first film. There are tangents that seem unnecessary and fleeting moments that had potential but were glitter glued over almost as soon as they presented themselves. Even though it felt like it missed some good opportunities and didn't shine as bright as the first, I know that kids will still love this one.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trolls-world-tour-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Father Stu (2022) in Movies
Sep 25, 2022
One Note Performance In The Lead Sinks Film
When one creates a film that is based on the real life exploits of a person, the Writer/Director of the film will be sorely tempted to include that character in every scene. Which is fine if that character is written in an interesting enough way to keep our attention. When it is NOT written well, then the film is poorer because of it.
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Merissa (14146 KP) rated Driving Me to You in Books
Dec 17, 2018
This heart-warming story is based around only a few characters but trust me when I say with characters this full of life, you don't need many. Sam has just come back from India after being severely ill but it has changed how she views life and she has a lot of ideas on how to share this with others. Verlaine is down on his luck after being out of work for four months and has applied for his dream job - renovating classic cars. Gemma is struggling to keep the business her late father started afloat and has asked (but paying for) the help of an old friend, Marcus. Marcus is Sam's ex-boyfriend but he has decided that he will have her back, after all, who could resist him? And then you have Paul and Scott, a couple that definitely belong together, that complement each other and work well together. The one you don't hear much of is Jack, Verlaine's flat mate, who seems a bit grumpy but that is understandable as he is worried about where they will live if things don't work out between Verlaine and the boss' sister! So there are the characters, let the story commence.
This story is full of bumps and bends as Sam and Verlaine learn about each other, make friends with each other and the others in the small circle, and let the sparks fly between them. Sam is also trying to find a way of mending her relationship with Gemma, is it really broken beyond repair? The things you find out about Marcus will make your toes curl but I won't say whether that's in a good or bad way.
The thing that I love about Julie Farrell's stories is that although you have the main characters, you also get taken along on the side stories of the other characters. This makes the book simply a delight to read and they are never boring! They are realistic but not depressing. Julie's heroines have backbone, a sense of humour and wit, and yes, slightly kooky in a good way. Her hero's are not perfect, they have their flaws which just makes them more loveable.
If you are looking for a modern romance with a hint of suspense and mystery, then check out this book. I honestly can't see how you would be disappointed.
This story is full of bumps and bends as Sam and Verlaine learn about each other, make friends with each other and the others in the small circle, and let the sparks fly between them. Sam is also trying to find a way of mending her relationship with Gemma, is it really broken beyond repair? The things you find out about Marcus will make your toes curl but I won't say whether that's in a good or bad way.
The thing that I love about Julie Farrell's stories is that although you have the main characters, you also get taken along on the side stories of the other characters. This makes the book simply a delight to read and they are never boring! They are realistic but not depressing. Julie's heroines have backbone, a sense of humour and wit, and yes, slightly kooky in a good way. Her hero's are not perfect, they have their flaws which just makes them more loveable.
If you are looking for a modern romance with a hint of suspense and mystery, then check out this book. I honestly can't see how you would be disappointed.
Peeling the Onion
Book
Translation of Beim Häuten der Zwiebel. Peeling the Onion is a searingly honest memoir that evokes...
The Shadow Behind the Stars
2.0
Rate It
Book
A girl’s dark destiny could cause the unraveling of the world in this spellbinding novel from the...
JT (287 KP) rated Robot & Frank (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Frank (Frank Langella) is slowing drifting into dementia, although his stiff upper lip and stubbornness refuse him to believe that there is anything wrong. His children fight to offer help despite an ongoing sense of resentment that they have to. When his son Hunter presents Frank with a robot butler designed to look after him he finds another more profitable use for it.
The portrayal of old age in any film can be depressing. We’re all going to end up that way at some point in our lives whether we like it or not. The only control we have is do we go quietly or kicking and screaming. The robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) is not given a name but his calming presence and dry underlying humour make him a perfect compliment for Frank’s brash and rather direct old timer.
Frank’s hidden past was as a jewel thief, spending most of his early life inside made it clear that he was not a good father to either of his children, and he’s been divorced from his wife for some time. It’s a beautifully written script set near enough in the future that it still is in keeping with present day surroundings – uniquely different mobile phones and voice activated Skype chat seem to be the more futuristic of the technologies, robots aside.
As their relationship develops the bond between them becomes closer. It feels very much like a real life Wall-E, Frank relaxes to become dependant on the Robot. It’s a solid film with great central performances with controlled and light hearted direction. The plot is wayward at times but it holds well for the duration.
The portrayal of old age in any film can be depressing. We’re all going to end up that way at some point in our lives whether we like it or not. The only control we have is do we go quietly or kicking and screaming. The robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) is not given a name but his calming presence and dry underlying humour make him a perfect compliment for Frank’s brash and rather direct old timer.
Frank’s hidden past was as a jewel thief, spending most of his early life inside made it clear that he was not a good father to either of his children, and he’s been divorced from his wife for some time. It’s a beautifully written script set near enough in the future that it still is in keeping with present day surroundings – uniquely different mobile phones and voice activated Skype chat seem to be the more futuristic of the technologies, robots aside.
As their relationship develops the bond between them becomes closer. It feels very much like a real life Wall-E, Frank relaxes to become dependant on the Robot. It’s a solid film with great central performances with controlled and light hearted direction. The plot is wayward at times but it holds well for the duration.