Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
Without a doubt, the best thing about the disastrous Suicide Squad movie of 2016 was Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. With what little she was given to work with, she went all in and truly made the role her own. A return to the character was inevitable really, and thankfully, that return is not in the form of Suicide Squad 2 but Birds of Prey and the fabulous emancipation of one Harley Quinn.
When we join Harley, she’s just broken up with the Joker. A nice little animated intro, with voiceover from Harley, gives us a quick overview of her life from birth, through childhood and eventually to the point where her and Mr J part ways. She hasn’t made it public knowledge just yet though, for fear of what might happen when word gets out that she no longer has the Joker’s protection. Instead, Harley buys herself a hyena called Bruce, takes part in vicious roller derbys and spends her nights partying at the nightclub of Gotham crime lord Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor).
Following an explosive public declaration of her relationship status - driving a big truck into Ace Chemicals, the spot where Harley first pledged herself to Mr J - Harley begins to find her life becoming increasingly entwined with that of the other Birds of Prey that will eventually make up the all-women squad. Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez) is a detective, in the process of investigating a series of murders by a crossbow wielding killer named Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) before the chemical factory explosion. Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), a singer at Sionis’ nightclub and packing a voice powerful enough to shatter glass. And finally, young pickpocket Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco). All of these women either have an axe to grind with men that treated them badly, or are currently being hunted by most of Gotham City’s bad guys. Their coming together, and subsequent emancipation, forms the basis of the movie.
That initial process involves a lot of time shifting and flashbacks while we are introduced to the key characters and plot points, before jumping back minutes, hours or even days in order to start filling in the narrative blanks. It’s messy at times and for the most part, it doesn’t really work either. Thankfully though, it’s a tactic that is ditched well before the halfway point.
The ‘Birds’ all have interesting back stories, and great potential in some cases too, but for the most part it’s Harley who is front and centre, stealing the limelight, and it never really feels as though we get to experience the others very much in comparison. Outside of the female leads, I didn’t really think much of Ewan McGregor and didn’t feel him to be a very convincing threat at all.
Birds of Prey is jam packed with creatively chaotic action and fight scenes from Chad Stahelski, who was responsible for the John Wick movies. They are confidently executed, at times cartoon-like, and usually accompanied by a kick-ass soundtrack.
I was initially going to give this a 6/10. But then I looked back at my rating for Suicide Squad and saw that was the rating I gave that. Birds of Prey is good, but not great. However, it is definitely a big improvement on Suicide Squad, so for that I give it a 7.
When we join Harley, she’s just broken up with the Joker. A nice little animated intro, with voiceover from Harley, gives us a quick overview of her life from birth, through childhood and eventually to the point where her and Mr J part ways. She hasn’t made it public knowledge just yet though, for fear of what might happen when word gets out that she no longer has the Joker’s protection. Instead, Harley buys herself a hyena called Bruce, takes part in vicious roller derbys and spends her nights partying at the nightclub of Gotham crime lord Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor).
Following an explosive public declaration of her relationship status - driving a big truck into Ace Chemicals, the spot where Harley first pledged herself to Mr J - Harley begins to find her life becoming increasingly entwined with that of the other Birds of Prey that will eventually make up the all-women squad. Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez) is a detective, in the process of investigating a series of murders by a crossbow wielding killer named Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) before the chemical factory explosion. Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), a singer at Sionis’ nightclub and packing a voice powerful enough to shatter glass. And finally, young pickpocket Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco). All of these women either have an axe to grind with men that treated them badly, or are currently being hunted by most of Gotham City’s bad guys. Their coming together, and subsequent emancipation, forms the basis of the movie.
That initial process involves a lot of time shifting and flashbacks while we are introduced to the key characters and plot points, before jumping back minutes, hours or even days in order to start filling in the narrative blanks. It’s messy at times and for the most part, it doesn’t really work either. Thankfully though, it’s a tactic that is ditched well before the halfway point.
The ‘Birds’ all have interesting back stories, and great potential in some cases too, but for the most part it’s Harley who is front and centre, stealing the limelight, and it never really feels as though we get to experience the others very much in comparison. Outside of the female leads, I didn’t really think much of Ewan McGregor and didn’t feel him to be a very convincing threat at all.
Birds of Prey is jam packed with creatively chaotic action and fight scenes from Chad Stahelski, who was responsible for the John Wick movies. They are confidently executed, at times cartoon-like, and usually accompanied by a kick-ass soundtrack.
I was initially going to give this a 6/10. But then I looked back at my rating for Suicide Squad and saw that was the rating I gave that. Birds of Prey is good, but not great. However, it is definitely a big improvement on Suicide Squad, so for that I give it a 7.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Feb 12, 2021
Give Chadwick the Oscar
Pulitzer Prize winning Playwright August Wilson wrote 10 plays that he labeled his “Century Cycle” - one placed in each decade of the 20th century that depicts the Negro experience in America. Denzel Washington has pledged to produce a film for each one of these plays.
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Crow (1994) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Close to the source material (2 more)
Great Cast
A powerful and emotional film
A Powerful Classic
The Crow is one of my all time favourite films as well as one of my all time favourite graphic novels.
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Touching the Rock: An Experience of Blindness (Notes on Blindness Film Tie-in) in Books
May 23, 2017
Eye-opener (if you pardon the pun)
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled Touching the Rock (1990), John’s book has been republished as Notes on Blindness after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
Notes on Blindness is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
Notes on Blindness remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today, Notes on Blindness is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled Touching the Rock (1990), John’s book has been republished as Notes on Blindness after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
Notes on Blindness is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
Notes on Blindness remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today, Notes on Blindness is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
A complete waste of time
Aside from Avengers Endgame, 2019 is shaping up to be pretty disappointing when it comes to blockbuster movies. Godzilla received a bit of a panning from the critics (although I personally quite liked it), then Dark Phoenix took an even bigger hit in the reviews, which I completely agree with. And now we have a sequel that nobody asked for, to a movie which has already had a couple of fairly average sequels, which has also received a wave of early bad reviews this week. To be honest, the trailer for Men In Black International certainly looked a bit....meh. A bunch of random stuff happening, no real indication of any plot, some annoying looking CGI aliens and an attempt to just coast off the back of having Thor and Valkyrie reunited on screen. I still remember how memorable the original trailer for the 1997 MIB movie was when it featured in cinemas - the shades, the guns, the aliens, the massive flying saucer crash landing in front of a cool looking Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. This trailer had none of that wow factor, but I went in, hopeful as always that the reviews were wrong.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Ruth Jefferson is a successful labor and delivery nurse with over twenty years of experience. She has a nice home and a college-bound seventeen-year-old son, Edison. She also happens to be African American. When Ruth takes over for a colleague at shift change, she is simply doing a checkup on newborn baby boy Davis. But after his checkup, she's told Davis' parents don't want her touching their child. A post-it note in his file states that no African American staff should be touching the patient. Ruth is shocked-- and angry. The next day, when Davis has a medical emergency, Ruth is faced with a choice. Does she help the baby--defying the order of the parents and her supervisor? Ruth's decision leads her on a path that involves the police and being charged with a serious crime. Police come into her home, handcuffing her and her son. Her public defender, Kennedy McQuarrie, recommends that Ruth's defense not involve race: a lightning rod for juries, she says. But Ruth is angry and humiliated and wants to clear her name, at whatever the cost.
This is a touching and powerful novel. Told from the varying points of view of Ruth, Kennedy, and Turk--baby Davis' father-- it is a compelling look at how race and family history shapes the person we become. It is a poignant story at points: it is amazing what people can rationalize when it comes to hatred. I found the novel very fitting right now, with what's going on in the U.S. Honestly, it's very frightening at times and hits a little too close to home.
Picoult's characters are well-formed and dynamic, and you find yourself drawn into parts of each.
Turk, obviously, despite the loss of his child, is not a sympathetic character, but he is a complex one; his progression over the course of the novel is intriguing, and it's amazing how Picoult did not make him a one dimensional white supremacist. The book is extremely well-researched; both from the side of white supremacy, as well as racism and the medical aspects of Davis' case. Kennedy is likeable and her struggle with Ruth's case, as she realizes the depth of both the visible and latent racism her client faces on a daily basis, is real and relatable. I applaud Picoult for tackling such a difficult subject with such honesty. It's almost as if, through Kennedy, she's admitting exactly what she doesn't know. (I highly recommend reading Picoult's afterword, as well.)
For me, the hardest parts of the book was that it gets a little too poetic in the Jodi Picoult way (those who frequently read her novels will identify), with her waxing on about race and parents and being brought together, versus letting the story tell itself. At points the book just goes on and on a bit, versus getting to the story and the point. There are lots of little subplots that go off, detracting at times from the main story and frustrating the reader. And, of course, there are some weird twists and plot points in the typical Picoult style, though they don't seem to pack the punch of her older novels. It all wraps up a little too smoothly, though I have to confess I sort of enjoyed the ending. It may have been a bit trite, but I am often a sucker for such things.
Overall, I was impressed with how Picoult approached this novel, and I enjoyed the storyline for the most part (I was certainly invested), though it dawdled at times and ended a bit too easily. I'd rate this a strong 3.5 - 3.75 stars. Certainly worth reading, especially if you're a Picoult fan.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley; is available everywhere as of 10/11/2016.
This is a touching and powerful novel. Told from the varying points of view of Ruth, Kennedy, and Turk--baby Davis' father-- it is a compelling look at how race and family history shapes the person we become. It is a poignant story at points: it is amazing what people can rationalize when it comes to hatred. I found the novel very fitting right now, with what's going on in the U.S. Honestly, it's very frightening at times and hits a little too close to home.
Picoult's characters are well-formed and dynamic, and you find yourself drawn into parts of each.
Turk, obviously, despite the loss of his child, is not a sympathetic character, but he is a complex one; his progression over the course of the novel is intriguing, and it's amazing how Picoult did not make him a one dimensional white supremacist. The book is extremely well-researched; both from the side of white supremacy, as well as racism and the medical aspects of Davis' case. Kennedy is likeable and her struggle with Ruth's case, as she realizes the depth of both the visible and latent racism her client faces on a daily basis, is real and relatable. I applaud Picoult for tackling such a difficult subject with such honesty. It's almost as if, through Kennedy, she's admitting exactly what she doesn't know. (I highly recommend reading Picoult's afterword, as well.)
For me, the hardest parts of the book was that it gets a little too poetic in the Jodi Picoult way (those who frequently read her novels will identify), with her waxing on about race and parents and being brought together, versus letting the story tell itself. At points the book just goes on and on a bit, versus getting to the story and the point. There are lots of little subplots that go off, detracting at times from the main story and frustrating the reader. And, of course, there are some weird twists and plot points in the typical Picoult style, though they don't seem to pack the punch of her older novels. It all wraps up a little too smoothly, though I have to confess I sort of enjoyed the ending. It may have been a bit trite, but I am often a sucker for such things.
Overall, I was impressed with how Picoult approached this novel, and I enjoyed the storyline for the most part (I was certainly invested), though it dawdled at times and ended a bit too easily. I'd rate this a strong 3.5 - 3.75 stars. Certainly worth reading, especially if you're a Picoult fan.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley; is available everywhere as of 10/11/2016.