Search
Search results
Merissa (12950 KP) rated Relentless (Somerton Security #2) in Books
Jun 21, 2018
Relentless (Somerton Security #2) by Elizabeth Dyer
Relentless is the second book in the Somerton Security series, and this time we are dealing with the big boss man himself, Ethan Somerton. This book does follow on from book one, so I would definitely recommend you read them in order, just so you get the most enjoyment out of them!
Ethan has a hard job to do - he needs to go undercover for a cartel, which could (most likely) get him killed. However, he is prepared to do that if it means he is giving a friend he thinks of like a brother a chance at living. They may have a friend on the inside though, as someone has been leaving tips for the various security forces, trying to help. Parker's program says one person, but Ethan is convinced it is someone else. Someone who sets his blood on fire, but has more walls than he does, and with very good reason. With a little bit of stubbornness and luck, they may just have a way forward.
This book is raw and gritty, and makes no bones about it. Ethan and Natalia have a hard time of it, both of them needing to trust the other, when trust is the hardest commodity to come by. I loved catching up with Parker and Georgia, and seeing how they are making it work, even when they are so different. Ethan is a tough man, but he certainly has found his match in Natalia. She has gone through things no one should, and survived.
With no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, this book was a brilliant read, and I certainly look forward to reading more in this series. I really need to know what happened at a certain time with a certain someone ;) If you like #Romance #Suspense, then I can pretty much guarantee you will love this series. Absolutely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Ethan has a hard job to do - he needs to go undercover for a cartel, which could (most likely) get him killed. However, he is prepared to do that if it means he is giving a friend he thinks of like a brother a chance at living. They may have a friend on the inside though, as someone has been leaving tips for the various security forces, trying to help. Parker's program says one person, but Ethan is convinced it is someone else. Someone who sets his blood on fire, but has more walls than he does, and with very good reason. With a little bit of stubbornness and luck, they may just have a way forward.
This book is raw and gritty, and makes no bones about it. Ethan and Natalia have a hard time of it, both of them needing to trust the other, when trust is the hardest commodity to come by. I loved catching up with Parker and Georgia, and seeing how they are making it work, even when they are so different. Ethan is a tough man, but he certainly has found his match in Natalia. She has gone through things no one should, and survived.
With no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, this book was a brilliant read, and I certainly look forward to reading more in this series. I really need to know what happened at a certain time with a certain someone ;) If you like #Romance #Suspense, then I can pretty much guarantee you will love this series. Absolutely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Undercover Princess in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>Rosewood Chronicles</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2598018490">Undercover Princess</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2761943995">Princess in Practice</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-12.png"/>;
<i>I am lucky to have the best sister ever, who keeps giving me books I love! She gave me Undercover Princess for my birthday back in November last year, and I finally managed to get to it. Thank you, sis!</i>
Even though Undercover Princess has great resemblance to The Princess Diaries and The Princess Protection Program, this book is unique in its own way, and the story is very different and positively surprising. I was in love with the characters and loved this book a lot. I will definitely be reading the second book of the series!
The story focuses on two main characters:
<b><i>* Lottie Pumpkin - the ordinary girl
* Ellie Wolf - the princess</i></b>
And I wish it was all so easy. But you see, Lottie is an ordinary girl, she grew up in England and her mother passed away when she was little. Before she passes away, she gives Lottie a tiara for her birthday and makes her promise that she will always be brave. Lottie’s only goal in life is to attend Rosewood Hall, no matter what. And she makes it, with a scholarship.
On the other side, we have Ellie, the princess of Maradova. All she ever wants to be is ordinary, but she is surrounded by servants and shiny items. She wants to go to Rosewood Hall, only to avoid all her royal duties. And the only way of her parents letting this happen is if she attends the college undercover.
Then we have these two girls being roommates. A rumour spreads around the school and everyone thinks that Lottie is the princess. And in this whole mystery, the real princess is in danger, but no one must know that the real princess is Ellie. <b>And this is only the beginning.</b>
The story is full of adventures and hilarious scenes, where we see Lottie and Ellie building their friendship, and trying to figure out the mystery behind all the threats they are receiving, all while they attend classes and go to parties like ordinary college girls.
While they play this game of swapping identities, they realise that this is more than a game, it is a lifestyle. And if Lottie is the undercover princess, she has to do everything to protect the real princess and her identity. Is this what she really wants? Is their friendship worth it?
There was a LGBT reference with a couple in this book, and maybe it was me, but I could also see a few sparks between Lottie and Ellie. I honestly expected something to happen between Lottie and Ellie's bodyguard. There were sparks though, so perhaps in the next book?
I loved how the partially-romantic scenes were building up to the real moment and made me want to read more. The writing skills this author has is truly amazing, and I praise her for it. It was a pleasure to read each chapter.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>Rosewood Chronicles</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2598018490">Undercover Princess</a> - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2761943995">Princess in Practice</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-12.png"/>;
<i>I am lucky to have the best sister ever, who keeps giving me books I love! She gave me Undercover Princess for my birthday back in November last year, and I finally managed to get to it. Thank you, sis!</i>
Even though Undercover Princess has great resemblance to The Princess Diaries and The Princess Protection Program, this book is unique in its own way, and the story is very different and positively surprising. I was in love with the characters and loved this book a lot. I will definitely be reading the second book of the series!
The story focuses on two main characters:
<b><i>* Lottie Pumpkin - the ordinary girl
* Ellie Wolf - the princess</i></b>
And I wish it was all so easy. But you see, Lottie is an ordinary girl, she grew up in England and her mother passed away when she was little. Before she passes away, she gives Lottie a tiara for her birthday and makes her promise that she will always be brave. Lottie’s only goal in life is to attend Rosewood Hall, no matter what. And she makes it, with a scholarship.
On the other side, we have Ellie, the princess of Maradova. All she ever wants to be is ordinary, but she is surrounded by servants and shiny items. She wants to go to Rosewood Hall, only to avoid all her royal duties. And the only way of her parents letting this happen is if she attends the college undercover.
Then we have these two girls being roommates. A rumour spreads around the school and everyone thinks that Lottie is the princess. And in this whole mystery, the real princess is in danger, but no one must know that the real princess is Ellie. <b>And this is only the beginning.</b>
The story is full of adventures and hilarious scenes, where we see Lottie and Ellie building their friendship, and trying to figure out the mystery behind all the threats they are receiving, all while they attend classes and go to parties like ordinary college girls.
While they play this game of swapping identities, they realise that this is more than a game, it is a lifestyle. And if Lottie is the undercover princess, she has to do everything to protect the real princess and her identity. Is this what she really wants? Is their friendship worth it?
There was a LGBT reference with a couple in this book, and maybe it was me, but I could also see a few sparks between Lottie and Ellie. I honestly expected something to happen between Lottie and Ellie's bodyguard. There were sparks though, so perhaps in the next book?
I loved how the partially-romantic scenes were building up to the real moment and made me want to read more. The writing skills this author has is truly amazing, and I praise her for it. It was a pleasure to read each chapter.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Caffeinated Fae (464 KP) rated Get a Life, Chloe Brown (The Brown Sisters #1) in Books
Feb 24, 2020
Enemies to Lovers (4 more)
Sunshine Character with a Grumpy Character
Invisible Illness Representation
Amazing Characters
Great Banter
Best Romance of 2019
I read this book a few months ago, thanks to Libro.fm's influencer program. I saw quite a few of my favorite blogs reviewing/talking about this book, so I knew I had to read it. I've waited a while to write this book review simply because I loved it so much. Get A Life, Chloe Brown is one of those books that will stay with you for a while after. I struggled to write this book review because nothing will do justice to how much I loved this book. I seriously want to shove it into everyone's hands and tell them to read it.
The narration for this book was outstanding. Adjoa Andoh narrated this book to perfection. Her voices, her attitude, everything was executed incredibly well. I always knew who was talking and never once questioned her narration. She brought this story to life & I loved every second of it.
What I loved the most about this book was the banter. Seriously, Talia Hibbert should get an award for verbal sparring. As you all know by now, banter is my catnip & I couldn't help but squee at the interactions between Red & Chloe. The author genuinely made me love each character more than I thought possible. Both Characters were realistic and had their faults. I loved seeing them work through their issues and grow.
I also loved that this book included so many of my favorite tropes. Enemies to lovers is hands down one of my favorite tropes, so when paired with a sunshine character with a grumpy character, I was in heaven. Talia Hibbert also executed the enemies to lover trope incredibly well. This trope is hit, or miss and so many things can go wrong. The fact that this was done to perfection still has me wowed.
I wouldn't do this book justice if I didn't mention that Talia Hibbert also handled invisible illnesses, domestic abuse, and some hard-hitting issues with compassion and accuracy. I loved that Chloe has fibromyalgia, and I genuinely appreciated how accurate it was. I also was thankful that this illness was present but didn't define Chloe. Chloe was three dimensional, and fibromyalgia didn't make up the core basis for who she was. It was beautiful to see Chloe as the main character, and I appreciated how well this story came together.
As you can tell, I loved this book. It's probably one of my all-time favorite books I have read. I loved the banter, the tropes, and the execution. Talia Hibbert should write a master class on banter. I honestly can't wait to dive into her backlist and have bought this book the second I could.
The narration for this book was outstanding. Adjoa Andoh narrated this book to perfection. Her voices, her attitude, everything was executed incredibly well. I always knew who was talking and never once questioned her narration. She brought this story to life & I loved every second of it.
What I loved the most about this book was the banter. Seriously, Talia Hibbert should get an award for verbal sparring. As you all know by now, banter is my catnip & I couldn't help but squee at the interactions between Red & Chloe. The author genuinely made me love each character more than I thought possible. Both Characters were realistic and had their faults. I loved seeing them work through their issues and grow.
I also loved that this book included so many of my favorite tropes. Enemies to lovers is hands down one of my favorite tropes, so when paired with a sunshine character with a grumpy character, I was in heaven. Talia Hibbert also executed the enemies to lover trope incredibly well. This trope is hit, or miss and so many things can go wrong. The fact that this was done to perfection still has me wowed.
I wouldn't do this book justice if I didn't mention that Talia Hibbert also handled invisible illnesses, domestic abuse, and some hard-hitting issues with compassion and accuracy. I loved that Chloe has fibromyalgia, and I genuinely appreciated how accurate it was. I also was thankful that this illness was present but didn't define Chloe. Chloe was three dimensional, and fibromyalgia didn't make up the core basis for who she was. It was beautiful to see Chloe as the main character, and I appreciated how well this story came together.
As you can tell, I loved this book. It's probably one of my all-time favorite books I have read. I loved the banter, the tropes, and the execution. Talia Hibbert should write a master class on banter. I honestly can't wait to dive into her backlist and have bought this book the second I could.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Bonfire in Books
May 16, 2018
This was first posted on <I><a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com"; target="new">The Ghastly Grimoire</a></I>.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
After completing this book, I think it’s safe to say that my reading slump has finally come to an end. I devoured Krysten Ritter’s debut novel, Bonfire, with a hunger I haven’t felt in months. If you take into account that I’m from a small town of a whopping fifteen hundred people, it’s easier to realize how much I am able to relate to the main character of this book, Abigail Williams. That, and Ritter hits on some nostalgia too, because in a way, Bonfire reads like Erin Brokovich meets Sweet Home Alabama, with distinctly darker notes.
Character development plays a vital role in how a book turns out. If your cast is too flat, it makes the book a total bore. On the other hand, if you’ve got characters that are dynamic and, in the case of several individuals in Bonfire, two-faced, the book is far more likely to entertain. In this area, Ritter has excelled at creating that small-town feel with many of the types of people those living in small towns meet. Let’s face it, even with Abigail moving to Chicago, there’s always those people who get out. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they’re gone for good. (In my case, I chose to come back.)
Plotwise, Ritter keeps the ball rolling. I didn’t feel like the story was dragging at any point. In fact, it’s the way that the story continues to unfold that kept me up until three this morning finishing it. Bonfire plays host to a story within a story, taking the corrupt corporations one step beyond contamination and into a far deeper, far worse crime. Just when things appear over, an entirely new turn keeps the story going. I won’t lie: I nearly bawled last night while I finished reading it.
There is only one aspect of this book that truly miffed me, and it sorta deals with the romance aspect. As many of my readers know, I abhor romance plots. Especially those that seem forced, rather than natural. That said, I really don’t want to divulge any spoilers, but I will say this: for being such a strong, independent character, there are some actions that Abigail Williams takes in this book that simply aren’t natural. They feel incredibly forced and out of character, and I can’t help but think it’s there more as a cop-out for the final twist in the story than going about it in some other clever manner.
That said, after finishing Bonfire, I feel it is safe to say that this debut novel is worth reading. Initially, I nearly forgot I had it until I saw it was one of the options for this month’s Book of the Month Club. Considering I’m very particular, I almost chose it before realizing I already had it technically. So if you’re wanting to pick it up cheap, there you go. (I’m actually still debating grabbing it through Book of the Month Club myself, because hey! I loved it.)
I would like to thank Penguin’s First to Read program for providing me with a copy of this book for the purpose of unbiased review.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Warcross in Books
Jan 27, 2020
Decent characters (2 more)
Plot
Pacing
YA formula (2 more)
Predictable
Not enough of the game
YA VR fun
I really enjoyed this book, as VR stories are some of my favorite types and rarely done well. This one was done well enough but suffered the large YA pitfall of there would be no story had people actually communicated with each other.
The story follows Emika, a scrappy teen living in the slums of (I think New York). As YA books tend to do, she is a normal, poor, orphan girl, who happens to be able to afford to dye her hair rainbow, and oh, I forgot to mention, very good at hacking. The world is fully submerged into the Nuerolink, which are AR/VR glasses almost everyone has, that handle the internet, gaming worlds, infrastructure etc etc. The most popular aspect is a game on the Nuerolink called Warcross, a rather simple Team vs Team capture the flag with power-ups and battling. Football move over, Warcross is where it's at. Because the nuerolink is so ingrained into society, a seedy underbelly of gambling and dark web has cropped up, and Emika makes her pennies as a bounty hunter for people who gamble in Warcross games. On the eve of the Opening of the biggest Warcross Tournament of the year (which takes up like... 6 months of the year...) Emika is being threatened with eviction, failed to get a bounty that would have fixed her situation. So as far as YA tropes go we can check off "ordinary, but special girl of poor circumstances".
Emika and her roommate, even though they are facing a looming eviction, log into the neurolink to experience the opening day ceremony. This is where Lu really introduces the ability of the nuerolink and where we can underline the "special" aspect of our tropey lead, as she somehow hacks herself into the opening game ceremony, revealing herself to the world. This is probably a good place to point out that hacking in this book is pretty much just Emika saying "I hacked into this thing" and little more than that. She runs a program here and there, that always does what she wants. Honestly as the story progresses I forget that she hacks, but the book doesn't let you forget that she's "super good at it".
Now fearing more than just eviction, but fearing for her freedom as she just did something very illegal, Emika is surprised when her world is turned upside down and she's spirited away by the Nuerolink creator to Tokyo. The creator being hot boy Hideo, whom she has been just ever so obsessed with since she was a kid, and much to her fantasies, he thinks she is special and needs her hacker expertise to track down someone that's been messing with the code in the game. BUT she needs to do it from within the game. So now she's going to be in the big game of the year as a player, a spy, and a hacker. Somehow juggling the investigation and playing a game professionally that she's the only kind of dabbled in (as far as we know, YA spoiler alert, she's super good at it).
I know I sound snarky, and like I didn't like the book, but I did. once you just accept the YA formula and that this book will be full of it, you can just lean back an enjoy the ride. Emika finds herself in a deep plot that involves other players, the dark web, and the ghosts of Hideo's past. Of course because YA Hideo is just smitten with Emika from the get go. She's great at the game, everyone acknowledges how special she is, but the big YA factor I struggled with over looking was the utter lack of communication. This whole book could've ended in a few chapters had the characters just communicated with each other. But there was always some kind of personal justification for why they couldn't just talk to each other.
I found the game world to be well thought out and interesting, just unfortunately it didn't get nearly as much page time as I'd like. I get that the story is about the scheme around the game, and not the game, but Lu introduced her as a player so I wanted more. I wanted more intereaction with her teammates, more development. She never felt like she was part of the group to me, which made it harder to believe in the second book when they all go out of their way to help her. The romance with Hideo was heavy-handed but cute, so I didn't mind it. But I kept finding myself wanting more gameplay. It's called Warcross for goodness sake.
One thing I have to commend Lu on is that it has a decent number of legitimate twists. Twists that made me actually gasp once or twice. That kept me intrigued and made me read it in a day. But unfortunately, while a fun little romp, the story's reliance on bad communication and YA tropes to advance the plot made the book lack a soul that really could take the story to the next level. I didn't care too much about anyone. I just wanted answers more than anything. But instead, we get a mysterious bad guy being cryptic, even though if he wasn't cryptic we could have avoided a lot and Emika always winning cause she's special. Though most of the information she gets is freely given to her and had nothing to do with her skills as a hacker.
When my boyfriend asked me if I liked it, I shrugged and said "yea it was fun, can we go get the second book". But I didn't have the overwhelming desire to tell him the plot or anything else as I do with books that truly resonate with me. To be fair when I did attempt to describe it the soap opera YA aspect seemed glaring and he just rolled his eyes.
Absolutely worth a read, especially if you enjoy this genre. But just don't go in expecting it to be special, it follows the YA formula to a T.
The story follows Emika, a scrappy teen living in the slums of (I think New York). As YA books tend to do, she is a normal, poor, orphan girl, who happens to be able to afford to dye her hair rainbow, and oh, I forgot to mention, very good at hacking. The world is fully submerged into the Nuerolink, which are AR/VR glasses almost everyone has, that handle the internet, gaming worlds, infrastructure etc etc. The most popular aspect is a game on the Nuerolink called Warcross, a rather simple Team vs Team capture the flag with power-ups and battling. Football move over, Warcross is where it's at. Because the nuerolink is so ingrained into society, a seedy underbelly of gambling and dark web has cropped up, and Emika makes her pennies as a bounty hunter for people who gamble in Warcross games. On the eve of the Opening of the biggest Warcross Tournament of the year (which takes up like... 6 months of the year...) Emika is being threatened with eviction, failed to get a bounty that would have fixed her situation. So as far as YA tropes go we can check off "ordinary, but special girl of poor circumstances".
Emika and her roommate, even though they are facing a looming eviction, log into the neurolink to experience the opening day ceremony. This is where Lu really introduces the ability of the nuerolink and where we can underline the "special" aspect of our tropey lead, as she somehow hacks herself into the opening game ceremony, revealing herself to the world. This is probably a good place to point out that hacking in this book is pretty much just Emika saying "I hacked into this thing" and little more than that. She runs a program here and there, that always does what she wants. Honestly as the story progresses I forget that she hacks, but the book doesn't let you forget that she's "super good at it".
Now fearing more than just eviction, but fearing for her freedom as she just did something very illegal, Emika is surprised when her world is turned upside down and she's spirited away by the Nuerolink creator to Tokyo. The creator being hot boy Hideo, whom she has been just ever so obsessed with since she was a kid, and much to her fantasies, he thinks she is special and needs her hacker expertise to track down someone that's been messing with the code in the game. BUT she needs to do it from within the game. So now she's going to be in the big game of the year as a player, a spy, and a hacker. Somehow juggling the investigation and playing a game professionally that she's the only kind of dabbled in (as far as we know, YA spoiler alert, she's super good at it).
I know I sound snarky, and like I didn't like the book, but I did. once you just accept the YA formula and that this book will be full of it, you can just lean back an enjoy the ride. Emika finds herself in a deep plot that involves other players, the dark web, and the ghosts of Hideo's past. Of course because YA Hideo is just smitten with Emika from the get go. She's great at the game, everyone acknowledges how special she is, but the big YA factor I struggled with over looking was the utter lack of communication. This whole book could've ended in a few chapters had the characters just communicated with each other. But there was always some kind of personal justification for why they couldn't just talk to each other.
I found the game world to be well thought out and interesting, just unfortunately it didn't get nearly as much page time as I'd like. I get that the story is about the scheme around the game, and not the game, but Lu introduced her as a player so I wanted more. I wanted more intereaction with her teammates, more development. She never felt like she was part of the group to me, which made it harder to believe in the second book when they all go out of their way to help her. The romance with Hideo was heavy-handed but cute, so I didn't mind it. But I kept finding myself wanting more gameplay. It's called Warcross for goodness sake.
One thing I have to commend Lu on is that it has a decent number of legitimate twists. Twists that made me actually gasp once or twice. That kept me intrigued and made me read it in a day. But unfortunately, while a fun little romp, the story's reliance on bad communication and YA tropes to advance the plot made the book lack a soul that really could take the story to the next level. I didn't care too much about anyone. I just wanted answers more than anything. But instead, we get a mysterious bad guy being cryptic, even though if he wasn't cryptic we could have avoided a lot and Emika always winning cause she's special. Though most of the information she gets is freely given to her and had nothing to do with her skills as a hacker.
When my boyfriend asked me if I liked it, I shrugged and said "yea it was fun, can we go get the second book". But I didn't have the overwhelming desire to tell him the plot or anything else as I do with books that truly resonate with me. To be fair when I did attempt to describe it the soap opera YA aspect seemed glaring and he just rolled his eyes.
Absolutely worth a read, especially if you enjoy this genre. But just don't go in expecting it to be special, it follows the YA formula to a T.
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.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Studies in Sorcery in Tabletop Games
Oct 6, 2020
We’re all nerds here, right? What was the best class the gang took in the Harry Potter series? Defense Against the Dark Arts of course! Learning spells to protect ones’ self (oneself? themselves??) from an onslaught of dark spells looked so fun in the movies. *DISCLAIMER: I have never read a Harry Potter book. I made it one chapter and couldn’t do it, but I have seen the movies several times.* In any case, what if you could learn the other side of these spells? The offensive ones? Well that would be cool right? What if you could get a full master’s degree in Dark Arts? Welcome to Studies in Sorcery.
Studies in Sorcery is a competitive card game that uses elements from other well-loved games and puts them with a wonderful theme and some very interesting card synergies. The game takes place over four school semesters (rounds) and each semester lasts four weeks (turns). Can you students complete your thesis using the research grants you are given, or will you fall flat to repeat the program again?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to back the game on Kickstarter launching October 6, 2020, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is fulfilled. -T
To setup, separate each deck of cards into like piles (Levels 100, 200, and 300 of the projects, graveyard cards, candles, vials) and shuffle them. Lay out the moon phase cards and semester tracker, placing the tracker tokens (skull erasers in the prototype) on the start of the cards to begin play. Set out the candles and vials in their own piles, as well as the point modifier tokens. Deal project cards according to the semester tracker in a 3×2 pattern under the moon phase and semester tracker cards like is shown in the photo below. Initially the graveyard pile will have three stacks of two cards each face-down next to the draw pile. Each player receives a research grant card, two thesis cards to choose one from, and two 100-level project cards from which the player will choose one. Give the first-player token (in this prototype it’s a cute LEGO skeleton) to the player who last attended school, and the game may begin!
Each player will be resolving actions, committing materials to their projects, and using completed project abilities each moon phase (turn). The actions one may take are: Dig, Buy, Cram, and Project Action. When a player uses the Dig action, they are searching for materials. A player can look at the items in the first pile of graveyard cards and take all the contents. If they do not like them, draw a card from the draw deck and place it on the first pile. Continue this for the next pile, and if unsatisfied the player may draw the top card from the draw pile OR either a candle or vial from the supply of stock cards.
Buy actions allow a player to use any unwanted materials or research grant monies to purchase additional candles, vials, or project cards from the middle of the table. To Cram, players may commit up to two materials from their hand to a project by placing the materials under the project cards. Project Actions allow players to use actions printed on any of their completed project cards. These can be very powerful.
Once each player has taken one of these actions, move the tracker token on the moon phase card to the next icon – Commit. To commit materials to projects, simply place the cards under the selected project (exactly like players do with the Cram action). Once all players have completed their commits, they may complete any projects that have sufficient materials by discarding the used materials and flipping the project card to its opposite side earning the printed points at the end of the game.
Play continues in this fashion for four turns each semester and the game lasts four semesters. Therefore the game will last 16 turns total. Whomever earns the most points for combinations of completed thesis cards, completed projects, bonus point modifier tokens, and one point for each $8 worth of materials in hand will be named Valedictorian of their class and winner of Studies in Sorcery!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I know some things will be different in the final version. However, what we were provided is a bunch of cards that have great art, are good quality, and are very easy to read and understand. The cute first player token will more than likely become a different component in the end, and the tracker tokens probably will be changed as well, but these are great bits to include in a game like this. The only negative I have about components is that I wish there was MORE color. Most of the cards are brown-heavy, and it’s completely fine, but I would love to have splashes of weird colors here and there. Overall, I am very pleased with the components in this game. Weird Giraffe Games always has great components in their prototypes AND final games.
It is probably no surprise that I love this game. The theme is wonderful, the wonky art is great, and it’s more thinky than one might imagine. The game play can be somewhat quick, or players can take excruciating amounts of time to think through their turns and chain together impressive actions. One thing remains constant – 16 turns to complete your thesis cards can be a huge undertaking. My first time playing I chose a thesis card worth 7 points (even though the rulebook advised me not to include those for the first play). I wasn’t even really that close to completing the thesis, but I may have with another two or three turns. But then again, that card is worth 7 points for a reason – it’s SUPPOSED to be difficult. My suggestion: take the rulebook’s advice and remove those thesis cards for the first play. Don’t try to be a hero.
Ahhhhhhh! I want to play it again right now just so I can attempt that thesis card again. But there are other thesis cards in the game. And other strategies to apply. And really, when you can’t wait to play a game, that’s a sign of a fantastic game for that specific gamer. Will this be a gem for everyone? I don’t know. It certainly works for me and my circle of gamers.
If you are a fan of the Harry Potter series (even though this is NOT a Harry Potter game) and need a thinky card game with that sort of fantasy classroom theme, or if your collection is begging for something new and quirky, or if you just love Weird Giraffe Games’ catalog and need every game they offer (I wouldn’t blame you), then you need to give Studies in Sorcery a look. Please consider backing it on Kickstarter launching October 6, 2020. I know my collection just got a lot cooler with this one.
Studies in Sorcery is a competitive card game that uses elements from other well-loved games and puts them with a wonderful theme and some very interesting card synergies. The game takes place over four school semesters (rounds) and each semester lasts four weeks (turns). Can you students complete your thesis using the research grants you are given, or will you fall flat to repeat the program again?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. These are preview copy components, and the final components may be different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers an idea of how the game plays. You are invited to back the game on Kickstarter launching October 6, 2020, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after it is fulfilled. -T
To setup, separate each deck of cards into like piles (Levels 100, 200, and 300 of the projects, graveyard cards, candles, vials) and shuffle them. Lay out the moon phase cards and semester tracker, placing the tracker tokens (skull erasers in the prototype) on the start of the cards to begin play. Set out the candles and vials in their own piles, as well as the point modifier tokens. Deal project cards according to the semester tracker in a 3×2 pattern under the moon phase and semester tracker cards like is shown in the photo below. Initially the graveyard pile will have three stacks of two cards each face-down next to the draw pile. Each player receives a research grant card, two thesis cards to choose one from, and two 100-level project cards from which the player will choose one. Give the first-player token (in this prototype it’s a cute LEGO skeleton) to the player who last attended school, and the game may begin!
Each player will be resolving actions, committing materials to their projects, and using completed project abilities each moon phase (turn). The actions one may take are: Dig, Buy, Cram, and Project Action. When a player uses the Dig action, they are searching for materials. A player can look at the items in the first pile of graveyard cards and take all the contents. If they do not like them, draw a card from the draw deck and place it on the first pile. Continue this for the next pile, and if unsatisfied the player may draw the top card from the draw pile OR either a candle or vial from the supply of stock cards.
Buy actions allow a player to use any unwanted materials or research grant monies to purchase additional candles, vials, or project cards from the middle of the table. To Cram, players may commit up to two materials from their hand to a project by placing the materials under the project cards. Project Actions allow players to use actions printed on any of their completed project cards. These can be very powerful.
Once each player has taken one of these actions, move the tracker token on the moon phase card to the next icon – Commit. To commit materials to projects, simply place the cards under the selected project (exactly like players do with the Cram action). Once all players have completed their commits, they may complete any projects that have sufficient materials by discarding the used materials and flipping the project card to its opposite side earning the printed points at the end of the game.
Play continues in this fashion for four turns each semester and the game lasts four semesters. Therefore the game will last 16 turns total. Whomever earns the most points for combinations of completed thesis cards, completed projects, bonus point modifier tokens, and one point for each $8 worth of materials in hand will be named Valedictorian of their class and winner of Studies in Sorcery!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and I know some things will be different in the final version. However, what we were provided is a bunch of cards that have great art, are good quality, and are very easy to read and understand. The cute first player token will more than likely become a different component in the end, and the tracker tokens probably will be changed as well, but these are great bits to include in a game like this. The only negative I have about components is that I wish there was MORE color. Most of the cards are brown-heavy, and it’s completely fine, but I would love to have splashes of weird colors here and there. Overall, I am very pleased with the components in this game. Weird Giraffe Games always has great components in their prototypes AND final games.
It is probably no surprise that I love this game. The theme is wonderful, the wonky art is great, and it’s more thinky than one might imagine. The game play can be somewhat quick, or players can take excruciating amounts of time to think through their turns and chain together impressive actions. One thing remains constant – 16 turns to complete your thesis cards can be a huge undertaking. My first time playing I chose a thesis card worth 7 points (even though the rulebook advised me not to include those for the first play). I wasn’t even really that close to completing the thesis, but I may have with another two or three turns. But then again, that card is worth 7 points for a reason – it’s SUPPOSED to be difficult. My suggestion: take the rulebook’s advice and remove those thesis cards for the first play. Don’t try to be a hero.
Ahhhhhhh! I want to play it again right now just so I can attempt that thesis card again. But there are other thesis cards in the game. And other strategies to apply. And really, when you can’t wait to play a game, that’s a sign of a fantastic game for that specific gamer. Will this be a gem for everyone? I don’t know. It certainly works for me and my circle of gamers.
If you are a fan of the Harry Potter series (even though this is NOT a Harry Potter game) and need a thinky card game with that sort of fantasy classroom theme, or if your collection is begging for something new and quirky, or if you just love Weird Giraffe Games’ catalog and need every game they offer (I wouldn’t blame you), then you need to give Studies in Sorcery a look. Please consider backing it on Kickstarter launching October 6, 2020. I know my collection just got a lot cooler with this one.
