shadowkat: (Grieving)
1. I finished Queen Charlotte - which I rather adored. I liked it better than the last two Bridgertons. In part, because, it focused so much on Queen Charlotte and Lady Danbury, who are wonderful characters. Both very strong in their own rights.
spoiler )

2. It occurs to me that the difficulty of being around others, is ...I have to turn a part of myself off. I cannot be fully myself. I talked to mother about this - and she agreed, there's always compromises to be made, and landmines to be navigated.

Being alone is satisfying. I feel energized. There's none of the tension.
Or the worry. None of the need to be mindful of someone else's space or needs.

Mother wondered if by living alone for so long, it would be difficult for me to live with others. I don't believe so. I work in a cubicle five days a week, eight hours a day, surrounded by people. I take trains with them. I share sidewalks with them. Share a laundry room. Share elevators. Mail. Hallways. And live in an apartment building in which often I can hear them in the hallways, or outside or rummaging above me or next door with the low hum of the telly. (Telly sounds better in my head than television.)

So yes, I can live in close proximity with others - but I need my own space within that. Where I can be alone, and separate from them. Where I can be if only for a few hours - or a day, or two, fully and completely myself.

3. I do not know if this true? But according to my brother, American English is actually British English from over two or three centuries ago. The British changed their language to differentiate themselves from Americans. So Americans are speaking old English?

Is this true? It's coming from my Brother, and I've learned over the years to take a lot of what he states with a hefty grain of salt. But I do trust my international and well versed correspondence list on the matter.
shadowkat: (Default)
Finished Andor finally on Disney +. The series is twelve episodes in length, each episode is about an hour in length. The last episode has a big teaser at the end of the credits that connects the series to Rogue One, and Star Wars: A New Hope. (No, it's not a person or droid so much as an activity, so no worries or anticipation there, at least.)

It stars Diego Luna, with Stellan Skarsgaard (Alec Skarsgaard's father), Forrest Whitacker, Geneive O'Reilly, Andy Serkis, Alan Tudyk (he plays the droid K-2SO) and Fiona Shaw rounding out the cast. vague spoilers? I'm never sure what are considered spoilers - so cutting just in case ) It's set between Revenge of the Sith and Rogue One, and follows the escapades of one of the members of the Rogue One team, Cassian Andor (portrayed by Diego Luna in both films). It's his backstory.

Part character piece, part thriller, part political espionage film - it kind of blends and blurs genres as it goes. For the most part, it works, but there are pacing issues here and there (which apparently are par for the course with these shows), vague spoilers again ) The action scenes are loud, the parlor speaking scenes too quiet.

When we're focused on the dynamic and engaging Cassian Andor - the minutes fly on by. Stellan Skarsgaard's character is also rather dynamic. Both are kind of anti-heroes in different ways. Read more... )

It does have some other interesting and captivating characters - Read more... )The action takes place in multiple places and planets, and clearly they had a large production budget or very good special effects.

My only quibble with it - is the political maneuverings going on with Read more... ) They all mumble, and I had troubles following it or focusing on it. It was boring. There was a lot of pointless chit-chat and talking around things. I'm not certain Star Wars lends itself well to the political bits. Bablyon 5 - it's not. Bab 5 is among the very few sci-fi shows that I think handled political maneuvering and espionage well. The others kind of flirt with it, but don't quite handle it well. Farscape did handle it better than most. But Bab 5 was by far the best in that department.

Read more... )

But other than that, it's rather good. Compelling. And by far the best thing I've seen in the Star Wars franchise since maybe Force Awakens.

Diego Luna holds the story together well, and has the charisma to lead the series. Stellan Skarsgard does as well. And the rest of the cast is equally good.
shadowkat: (Default)
I found a review that I sort of agree with? (One never quite agrees completely with others reviews, because we see things so differently, at different times, locals, and often venues.)

Here's the NY Times "professional" critic's review on the final episode and takeaways from the series as a whole - it's spoilery, so don't read if you are "avoiding" spoilers. [Also it may or may not be behind a pay-wall.]

I did not read any reviews prior to seeing the series - outside of the blurbs I saw here and there on my DW correspondence list. Also, I watched the series - completely unspoiled, outside of what I had seen in the Jackson films, and my memories of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - which I've not re-read in any form since the 1980s.

So a few caveats:

1.) I am by no means a purist. I've never read nor have any intention of reading any works by Tolkien outside of the ones that I already have, which are : The Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. I find Tolkien kind of grueling after a bit, and I grew tired of the meticulous attention to detail he applied. I did not bother with the appendices, I'm not even sure they were included in the editions that I read or that I was aware of them when I read them.

2.) While I loved The Hobbit, enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, and visited an impressive and extensive exhibition of Tolkien's art, correspondence, journals, work, and scholarship - I am by no means a fan. This means, I have no clue who half of these characters are, and was oblivious to any major changes or alterations from the books. I only know that there were alterations because I found them online after the fact.

I think as is true with most adaptations, if you memories of the source material are rather vague, you'll enjoy them more. Or if you don't care and see it as adaptation - you'll enjoy it more. It is after all called an adaptation for a reason.

**

Review

It is among the better fantasy series that I've seen to date. The characters are compelling, and it answers various lingering questions that I had after seeing the films. It stays, for the most part, true to Jackson's film verse. I don't know how to true it is to the book verse - it didn't jar me any, I didn't notice anything off about the story, but keep in mind the above caveats. I'm casual fan of Tolkien, I'm by no means an obsessive one.

Also, it didn't have some of the problems that I had with Jackson's The Hobbit. This is either because I was more familiar with The Hobbit, or Jackson was more into long-unending battles.

Rings of Power meanders a bit, and takes a while to get to the point. Some might say, too long to get to the point. There is fun to be had along the way, however. There are also more diverse characters in this fantasy series than most. The lead is female, here, and she's a warrior. Adept at battle, and rather powerful. Her weakness is that she's a bit myopic, and too focused on her mission - to the point that she often fails to see what is right in front of her. Galadriel arc is by far the best arc in the series. She is the titular lead in this series - and her arc kind of sits at its center.Read more... )
shadowkat: (Default)
Finished watching The Prom [Netflix] - directed by Ryan Murphy, which got mixed reviews.

I didn't find it all that entertaining. Uplifting yes, in places. And I can see why Murphy fell in love with the musical. But...it doesn't really work as a film.
review )

[In other television news, or rather streaming. The trailers for Fate: The Winx Saga (which is a Netflix series about a Fairy Magic School based on an Italian Cartoon) and Loki on Disney + looks really interesting. And I find myself looking forward to both.

Even though Netflix has gone up in price, I can't stop watching it. Damn it.
shadowkat: (Default)
1. Still making my way through She-Rah and the Princesses of Power - I'm on S3 at the moment. It is getting better as it goes, but I wish the animation was better. Ugh.

2. I finally got around to watching Disclosure on Netflix, which I highly recommend. It's not perfect, but it does provide some insight into the transgender community, through their perspective. It's a documentary that focuses on the transgender entertainment community - ie. the actors and actresses within the community, along with the entertainers, and their struggle.
long spoilery review )
shadowkat: (work/reading)
1. Television shows...that I need to find time for:

* Good Omens just started on Amazon Prime and is getting good reviews.

* The Americans -- apparently had a great series ender and highly recommended by everyone who saw it. Hmmm...is it still on Netflix? (It's another series that keeps getting rec'd by everyone who shares my taste or has excellent taste. Now if I can just get past the first three episodes...)

* The Deadwood Movie -- not only got good reviews as a satisfying wrap-up to the series, but you don't have to have seen the series to enjoy it. (Hmmm..this is good news, it means I don't have to try and watch the whole series first.)

* Fleabag -- this also keeps getting rec'd. It's like Barry. Everyone who has good taste is raving about it. Now if I can just get past the first couple of episodes..

* The end of Killing Eve S2 (which is apparently controversial and not everyone loved?) -- I need to watch the last three episodes.

Oh..and The Good Fight is coming CBS on Sunday nights -- June 16. I need to remember to inform my mother. This is the legal political satire that is a spin off from The Good Wife by the Kings, and Ridely Scott. It stars Christine Baranski, Gary Cole, among others.

Plus the stuff I already have in my queue. Can we say too many television shows and too little time? And I may try The 100 again -- the icons on fandom icons look intriguing.

2. Making my way through "Where'd You Go Bernadette" -- which is not at all nice to Microsoft. Or Seattle for that matter. I'm amused by both -- since I visited Seattle last year to see my cousin, and I have a co-worker who raves about it and his son working at Microsoft constantly.

There's a heavy feminist theme in it -- about how women are treated in our society and in the workplace. Although I'm not sure if everyone will pick up on it? Co-worker didn't -- she's listening to the audio version, which is admittedly an entirely different experience. The book has a fascinating structure --vague spoilers in case you want to read it blind )

But how this works as an audio book or a film, which it has been adapted into, is beyond me. The film's second trailer sort of spoiled me on what happens. So if you want to read the book without any plot spoilers? Don't watch the film trailer.
Also, the film trailer spoils you on the entire plot of the film. Which is odd.

As an aside -- why would you spoil the entire plot of a movie in the trailer??

What I told you above is on the book jacket. The marketers of the book spoil you on that. But I tried to hide it just in case.

I think it's very hard to go into content blind nowadays, you can of course, but it's not easy.

The other thing that I'm reading, because why just read one thing at a time? What would be the fun in that? Is Lucifer -- the newer version -- in it Lucifer was attacked by something in the void, and has teamed up with his brother Gabriel, whose lost his heart and blames Lucifer for it, to find the person or persons that killed their father. It's interesting and the art is REALLY good. Also it's heavily into Gaiman's world -- of the Sandman, Dream, Death, etc. I think Gabriel was made mortal though, although how he's walking about without a heart -- I've no clue. Also, weirdly, none of the Angels have sexual organs. So they are naked a lot, but there's no penis to speak of. In short, they look a bit like Naked Ken Dolls, except more interesting and better looking. Maybe Ken was meant to be an Angel -- hence the lack of genitilia? I digress.
and I sort of continue to digress )

3. Still on books...while reading a guest review of the book Teach ME on Smart Bitches.. I got distracted by this:

This is the teacher that recommended Tam Lin by Pamela Dean and countless other books to me.

Okay, I know this is...how to put it? Unpopular opinion time? Because most of my DW correspondence list, or at least the LJ one loved Pamela Dean's Tam Lin. And I read it on their fannish recommendations.

But.

I don't understand the appeal of this book. The appeal of this novel -- dear friends, is completely and utterly lost on me. But this is true of a lot of hyped books that I've read and writers. Also television series and films. So it's nothing new to have an unpopular opinion...

Read more... )

I don't know, I just remember being terribly disappointed by Tam Lin, and that could well be because it was hyped up as the best thing ever. This is never good. It's better to go into something with low expectations, less likely to be disappointed in it. It's probably not a good idea to read a book that a fan recommends...at least not until you read a lot of negative review of it first? On Good Reads and Amazon, I will often read the three star reviews. I skip the two and one for the most part, and the five. Mainly because the person tends to be incoherent with glee or incoherent with spite. Three star reviews are more balanced and tend to tell you more about the book and less about the reviewer.

If the book only has five or four star reviews -- I've learned to ignore it. If it only has one or two star? Same. But if it has a little of all of the above? I'm interested -- because the more diverse the responses -- the more interesting the book.

Also, when reading a five star review -- if the reviewer never makes it clear why they like it or can't do it in a manner that is coherent, the review tells you little.

I have a friend who never reads reviews -- she states that they are either rants or filled with spoilers. I love them, but so many people can't write them.
shadowkat: (Default)
1. I just finished watching Marvel's The Inhumans, which is not nearly as bad as the reviewers and the media seem to think it is. From a quality perspective? It's about equal to or on par with Marvel: Agents of Shield.

Is the acting bad? No not really. I actually found the bewildered and somewhat gruff performance of Anson Mount who portrays Black Bolt, oddly amusing and compelling. I can't decide if he's mentally challenged or just confused?

The plot? I don't know if it helps to be somewhat familiar with the characters from the comics? At any rate, the story is about a uprising among the Inhumans. Black Bolt and Medusa are currently leading the Inhumans, who are based on the moon. They are a society of hybrid human/aliens. If you've watched any of Marvel Agents of Shield, you may an inkling as to what the Inhumans are. At any rate, the comic books focused specifically on the Royal Family of Inhumans, Black Bolt, Medusa, Maximus, Crystal, etc. Each with different powers, except for Maximus who appears to be genetically human.

Here's the comic book history of The Inhumans:
Read more... )
The series like the books focuses on the Royal Family. spoilers )

If you requires quality in your television dramas and are very selective (aka a television critic) this is not your show. It's campy and a bit cheesy, with loads of melodrama and cheap special effects (think Agents of Shield, Wynona Earp or Supergirl not Heroes or Westworld). So if you like Supergirl, the Flash, and Agents of Shield? Give it a whirl, you might like it. Although it is more melodramatic and not quite as relateable.

First hour? D- (I was bored and my attention kept wandering. Maximus talks too much. Someone needs to smack him. He just drones on and on, or rather whines.) Second Hour? C+ (more active and compelling, also funny in places. Less Maximus whinging.)
Overall rating? C-


2. I really wish Disney would get its act together and stop threatening to remove content that I'm enjoying. Also stop charging more money for access. (Disney? If you have "commercials" you do not get to charge more. If you don't have commercials, you do. There are rules regarding these things, or there used to be.) Disney and Altice the owner of Optimum Cable are fighting over rates, and Disney is threatening to pull content if Altice doesn't pay Disney the rates it wants for ESPN, ABC, The Disney Channel, Freeform. The big fight is actually over ESPN, which I don't watch and could care less about.

Sigh. Anyone else miss the days in which Cable was basically just HBO and Showtime?

They've been posting their threat at the bottom of all of their television shows, stating the channel may go dark on October 1. So I sent angry emails to both services in protest.

Although...frustrating as it is? I will survive without General Hospital (which I can actually watch online), Grey's Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, and...I'm not sure there's that much else. Maybe the Inhumans, although admittedly on the fence about it. The first hour of the Inhumans was boring. The second hour was interesting.

So you know, not that great a loss. It's not like there's not a million other television shows cluttering up my to-watch queue.
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
1. Just finished watching the pilot to the new series Killer Women - which is an adaptation of an Argentine series by executive producer Sofia Vergara (the actress from Modern Family), starring Tricia Helfer (Six from BSG), Marc Blucas (Riley from Buffy - and almost unrecognizable - he's turned into a good actor by the way), Mike Trucco (also from BSG), and another couple of actors that I recognize but can't place.

It's sort of a mash-up of "In Plain Sight" (the Mary McCormack series) and Ricardo Rodriguez movies. I'd say more Rodriquez than Quentin Tarantino, although they do have a similar style, but Rodriquez is a bit more pulpy. Rodriquez was behind the flick Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Was rather surprised by it - it's actually a lot of fun, and the characters are engaging as well as moderately realistic. Plus the female lead is a strong one.

Tricia Helfer plays Molly Parker, a Texas Ranger who plays the trumpet in a band and can rope a steer. She's sassy, smart, and tough. There's a back story that I won't spoil, and a romance that is interesting. Marc Blucas plays the romantic interest - and he's surprisingly good in this - and almost unrecognizable. Mike Trucco plays Molly's brother - whom she is currently staying with.

The cases of the week center on female killers - whom Molly tracks down. The gist is that women do not kill for the same reasons men do - they kill out of love not hate. And the style is sort of gritty - realism, with splash of Quentin Tarantino/Rodriquez cheeky humor.

The violence unlike most of these series - is taken seriously, but you don't feel hammered over the head with it or pummeled. It's sort of fun, but not quite as over-the-top as Django Unchained.

Overall, I recommend it. Will definitely be watching this one.

2. Wed Reading Meme:

Favorite Book of 2013?

I don't really have one. I suppose if push came to shove...I'd state Privilege of the Sword, it's the one I found the most memorable. With possibly the Captive Prince a close second.
Just because they were different, and to an extent commented on the romance trope.

Current Book that I'm reading?

The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarity - a best-selling Australian author. Sort of hard to describe without giving away the plot. It's about three women, Cecilia, Tess, and Rachel. And told in their perspectives, through a third person close stream of consciousness style. It's an internal book - you spend a lot of time inside people's heads and a thoughtful one. Moriarity examines the messy emotions that humans have. Guilt, jealousy, envy, rage, fear, cowardice...all come to the fore. It's hard to hate anyone here. There are no good guys or bad guys, just people.

Over 20 years ago...mild spoilers )

A book you want to discuss as you are reading it and long after.

What I'll be reading next?

Don't really know. I choose books by intuition now or mood. It's whatever feels right at the time. Right now, I'm tempted by another book by Liane Moriarty, but I may go with Eleanor Parker's Fangirl instead, or flirt again with Philip Meyer's son. There's also the sci-fi novel that my brother gave me for Christmas. And David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas, which I've been meaning to read.

3) As an aside on books? Did you know they are making Michael Faber's sci-fi horror novel Under the Skin into a movie starring Scarlett Johannson? Now this is one book that I don't think I could watch a film version of. The book was disturbing enough, there are visuals in my head from that book that I'll never be rid of. Why would you make a film out of it?

Actually, there's a certain number of books that I really want to be made into films and never are, and various books that I think are either unfilmmable or should not be made into films - that weirdly are. What's up with that? One more thing I can't control obviously. There are so many - that's my New Year's Resolution - to not worry about the things I have no control over. Sweating them is a waste of time.

Books I wish would be made into movies but aren't:
Read more... )

Books that I do not want made into movies:

Read more... )

What books have you read that you do want adapted into movies and which ones, would you prefer not to be?
shadowkat: (Default)
Saw the play The Pavilion last night at the South Carolina Repertory Theater. It's by Craig Wright - who according to the playbill - also wrote for Six Feet Under, Lost, Brothers & Sisters, Dirty Sexy Money and The United States of Tara. The Pavilion was nominated for a Pulitzer and the American Theater Critics Association Best New Play Award.

Popster liked it, Momster thought it was a bit on the preachy side (heavy and long existentialist monologues). Odd play. But demonstrative of how plot can often be the least interesting aspect of a story. The plot is rather simple. A 37 year old man goes to his 20 year high school reunion at the Pavilion, which is about to be demolished to make way for a parking lot. His goal is to reunite with his high-school sweetheart, whom he dumped twenty-years ago when she got pregnant with his kid. He wants to make things right with her, to start again.
The theme is that you can't really do that, all you can do is let go of the past and go forward.
You can revisit the past, even reminisce, and possibly forgive, but you can't change it or pretend it never happened.

It's a three person play, with a scant set. The narrator - a guy - plays all the former classmates, the ominiscent narrator or stage manager, and sets the overall tone, setting, and
stage. It's in this respect at least, similar to Thornton Wilder's Our Town, except Wilder's play is a bit more ambitious than Wright's and broader in scope. Here, we have what amounts to a moment in time - how each person is affected by others, how none are necessarily "happy" or
necessarily "secure" in their lives, so much as making the best of things. Peter - the protagonist wants to fix his life. He's a psychologist, living out in LA with a 23 year old girl-friend who paints still lifes. And he feels as if he's on the wrong path, the wrong train, that somewhere along the way - he took the wrong route. 17 minutes threw him off. If he can just reunite with Kari, his high school sweet heart, marry her, live with her, all will be well.
He decides leaving her set his course off. He would have been happier if he'd stayed. Kari for her part, disagrees - she's married to Hans. A golf pro. Who saved her from ill-repute. She'd had an abortion after Peter dumped her. And married Hans. And got a job in a bank, as the safety deposit clerk. Like Peter, she too hears everyone else's problems...digests them, yet never voices her own. And she harbors resentment towards Peter for the choices he made, as well as her own.

While Peter and Kari attempt to connect, they are interupted and often enter into discussions with other classmates, listening to snippets of each classmates' life. The narrator, one man, plays each of these classmates. And to give him credit he does a good job, with no costume changes, merely wearing white scrubs, and barefoot, he morphs into each character through vocal mannerisms and body language never quite falling into farce or caricature. This technique not only makes the play cheaper to produce, but it also acts as a metaphor for the self-asorption of the characters. As Kari points out to Peter - all Peter sees is himself, his needs. As does Kari. As, says the narrator, everyone. We all see ourselves as the lead character, everyone else blurs together. While they listen to their classmates, they never quite see or connect or hear them. They've blurred into one person. And if you listen to the other classmate's issues, Kari and Peter's doomed romance and current issues, are relatively minor, but not to them.

We're told the play is about time. At each interval, we're told by the narrator what time it is.
And how time can't be changed or altered. Not for one person. Not for two. Not for many. It heads in one direction only. But the play is also a psychological one on perception.

It's by no means perfect, flawed in a few places. The monologues drug it a bit, and the plot felt a bit cliche as did the humor. But it was performed. And there are bits in it that resonate long afterwards - due to how it is presented. Or the angle the playwright chose to present it. The idea of having one person play all the former classmates, male and female, and the scant staging, the Our Town feel to the proceedings...demonstrating once again that it is how we tell our stories that often makes the most difference and has the greatest impact.
shadowkat: (rainboweyelock)
lengthy somewhat rambling post on BSG episode Rapture with lots of spoilers up to that episode. No spoilers after it. )

As an aside: if you read this and are "spoiled" please keep all spoilers to yourself and do not respond with "spoiler" riddles. I am unspoiled for future episodes, outside of the previews, teasers, and what the writers have chosen to tell me to promote their own show.
Thanks.
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 10:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios