Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Let It Go: A Frozen Twisted Tale in Books
Aug 20, 2019
“What if Anna and Elsa never knew each other?”
I did it again! A new shiny twisted tale came out and I let it jump to the top of my TBR pile! I’m weak!
Let It Go is the latest instalment in the twisted tale’s series and explores how Anna and Elsa’s story would play out if a magical accident caused the two sisters to be cursed.
As always, Jen Calonita writes this very well: drip feeding us information by opening the novel on eighteen-year-old Elsa shadowing her parents’ royal duties and preparing to become a leader when she comes of age.
It is quite refreshing for the reader to meet the King and Queen of Arendelle: they didn’t have much depth in the movie but Jen Calonita presents an intimidating yet loving King with his kind and gentle Queen. They are both, however, marred by a melancholy which even Elsa cannot fathom; the Queen in particular has an air of sadness around her and has a habit of taking mysterious day trips, always alone.
Elsa is an adoring daughter and will clearly be a benevolent Queen as she follows in her father’s footsteps. She is, however, lonely and has always pined for someone of her own age for company: she has always wished for a sister. It isn’t until Elsa overhears an argument between her parents that she begins to question the life around her.
Unlike other books in the twisted tale’s franchise we aren’t introduced to any new characters apart from the King and Queen. There are a few servants who have minor roles but no one who has a real impact upon the story. Instead, Let It Go focuses on all the characters we already love: I really liked how Jen Calonita included everybody, even the irritating Duke of Weselton. True to form though, the characters don’t meet quite as they did in the movie. Hans and Olaf meet Elsa first whereas Anna and Kristoff are acquaintances in Anna’s “cursed” life. In truth I preferred Anna and Kristoff’s relationship in this novel as it seemed more realistic, with Kristoff being irritated by Anna’s stubbornness and incessant chatter.
Like I mentioned, Calonita isn’t forthcoming with information regarding the curse and it is only with the help of a certain troll that we learn the details of how Elsa and Anna were parted as well as the severity of the curse that has been placed upon them: if they come too close to each other Elsa’s powers will freeze Anna.
I did appreciate how Calonita didn’t just settle for a storyline that the girls had to be kept apart to avoid further accidents and the impossible, heat-wrenching decision for their parents is beautifully written. I also liked how the curse came about due to the sheer love between the sisters and specifically, Elsa’s defiance to lose their special bond and friendship.
In fact, I loved how the twist is all about the sister’s love for each other: the red herring of true love’s kiss is not even considered.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for the book didn’t continue all the way through to the conclusion as the second half seemed to mirror the film a lot. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely loved the little references to the film all the way through the book, as I do with all the twisted tales. However, towards the end Let It Go felt like it was just writing out the movie, with a few characters in different locations. For this reason, I did feel the ending was a little lacklustre.
Overall Let It Go is an enjoyable, easy read. Anna’s flashbacks provide an insight into the childhood of the princesses that we don’t get in the film and my favourite, Olaf, plays a more important role than that of dismembered tour guide. For me, the second half of the book was not as gripping and more of a retelling of the film but it is still a good addition to the twisted tale franchise.
I did it again! A new shiny twisted tale came out and I let it jump to the top of my TBR pile! I’m weak!
Let It Go is the latest instalment in the twisted tale’s series and explores how Anna and Elsa’s story would play out if a magical accident caused the two sisters to be cursed.
As always, Jen Calonita writes this very well: drip feeding us information by opening the novel on eighteen-year-old Elsa shadowing her parents’ royal duties and preparing to become a leader when she comes of age.
It is quite refreshing for the reader to meet the King and Queen of Arendelle: they didn’t have much depth in the movie but Jen Calonita presents an intimidating yet loving King with his kind and gentle Queen. They are both, however, marred by a melancholy which even Elsa cannot fathom; the Queen in particular has an air of sadness around her and has a habit of taking mysterious day trips, always alone.
Elsa is an adoring daughter and will clearly be a benevolent Queen as she follows in her father’s footsteps. She is, however, lonely and has always pined for someone of her own age for company: she has always wished for a sister. It isn’t until Elsa overhears an argument between her parents that she begins to question the life around her.
Unlike other books in the twisted tale’s franchise we aren’t introduced to any new characters apart from the King and Queen. There are a few servants who have minor roles but no one who has a real impact upon the story. Instead, Let It Go focuses on all the characters we already love: I really liked how Jen Calonita included everybody, even the irritating Duke of Weselton. True to form though, the characters don’t meet quite as they did in the movie. Hans and Olaf meet Elsa first whereas Anna and Kristoff are acquaintances in Anna’s “cursed” life. In truth I preferred Anna and Kristoff’s relationship in this novel as it seemed more realistic, with Kristoff being irritated by Anna’s stubbornness and incessant chatter.
Like I mentioned, Calonita isn’t forthcoming with information regarding the curse and it is only with the help of a certain troll that we learn the details of how Elsa and Anna were parted as well as the severity of the curse that has been placed upon them: if they come too close to each other Elsa’s powers will freeze Anna.
I did appreciate how Calonita didn’t just settle for a storyline that the girls had to be kept apart to avoid further accidents and the impossible, heat-wrenching decision for their parents is beautifully written. I also liked how the curse came about due to the sheer love between the sisters and specifically, Elsa’s defiance to lose their special bond and friendship.
In fact, I loved how the twist is all about the sister’s love for each other: the red herring of true love’s kiss is not even considered.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for the book didn’t continue all the way through to the conclusion as the second half seemed to mirror the film a lot. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely loved the little references to the film all the way through the book, as I do with all the twisted tales. However, towards the end Let It Go felt like it was just writing out the movie, with a few characters in different locations. For this reason, I did feel the ending was a little lacklustre.
Overall Let It Go is an enjoyable, easy read. Anna’s flashbacks provide an insight into the childhood of the princesses that we don’t get in the film and my favourite, Olaf, plays a more important role than that of dismembered tour guide. For me, the second half of the book was not as gripping and more of a retelling of the film but it is still a good addition to the twisted tale franchise.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Just My Luck in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-47.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>What would you do if you win the lottery?</i></b>
What happens when a person suddenly has a chance to be rich? Just My Luck by Adele Parks is a brutal book about bad luck, betrayals, friendships and most importantly – how life can change in just one moment.
For fifteen years, Lexi and Jake have played the same six numbers with their friends. Over dinners, they have discussed many important things over the years: kids, marriages, houses and jobs… But one Saturday night, there is an argument in the group. Someone is lying. And then, six numbers come up on the lottery that are about to change everything.
Lexi and Jake have the winning ticket for almost £18 million. And their friends want their share in it…
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I dived into this book completely unprepared. I only knew that someone wins the lottery, but I wasn’t too familiar with the synopsis. And trust me – it was better for me to explore it all throughout the book.
We follow the story mostly focused on Lexi’s point of view, however, we also get a glimpse of other people’s stories as well, which I think for me was refreshing and kept the pace moving in a nice manner.
Not only do we meet different characters in this book, but we also meet different personalities, with different motivations, dreams and life goals. When Lexi and Jake realised they have won the lottery, they both behave in a very different way.
Lexi is the one that wants to keep things as normal as they are, plan for their future, have small luxuries and then keep the rest of the money mostly as savings, and donate some of it to charity and try to help other people.
Jake, on the other side, wants to enjoy the money they won, and spend it on a new house, new car, be part of the upper class and hire driver services for his children, when they move to a private school.
The relationship between Lexi and Jake will begin to change, as they both will change during this period. This book is a perfect summary of what money may actually do to people and relationships, and how it may help them or destroy them completely.
I loved the drama where the friends were involved as well, also when the children played their part as well into the whole situation. It is crazy to see how easily children can be manipulated by words and wealth too, in their own little worlds.
I really wished I have seen more of Toma’s story and point of view, and had a proper closure to his chapter. His story was definitely my favorite one for sure!
<b><i>If you are a fan of thrillers and drama, you will definitely enjoy this book. It will keep you on the edge until the very last chapter. And that last chapter will change everything! Let me know once you’ve read it, because I am dying to talk to someone about that last revelation!</i></b>
I am extremely lucky to be part of the blog tour organised by the amazing team at HQ! Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for sending me this book in exchange for my review! Check out the other amazing participants of this blog tour as well:
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JUST-MY-LUCK-BTB.jpg?resize=594%2C1536&ssl=1"/>;
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
<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>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-47.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>What would you do if you win the lottery?</i></b>
What happens when a person suddenly has a chance to be rich? Just My Luck by Adele Parks is a brutal book about bad luck, betrayals, friendships and most importantly – how life can change in just one moment.
For fifteen years, Lexi and Jake have played the same six numbers with their friends. Over dinners, they have discussed many important things over the years: kids, marriages, houses and jobs… But one Saturday night, there is an argument in the group. Someone is lying. And then, six numbers come up on the lottery that are about to change everything.
Lexi and Jake have the winning ticket for almost £18 million. And their friends want their share in it…
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I dived into this book completely unprepared. I only knew that someone wins the lottery, but I wasn’t too familiar with the synopsis. And trust me – it was better for me to explore it all throughout the book.
We follow the story mostly focused on Lexi’s point of view, however, we also get a glimpse of other people’s stories as well, which I think for me was refreshing and kept the pace moving in a nice manner.
Not only do we meet different characters in this book, but we also meet different personalities, with different motivations, dreams and life goals. When Lexi and Jake realised they have won the lottery, they both behave in a very different way.
Lexi is the one that wants to keep things as normal as they are, plan for their future, have small luxuries and then keep the rest of the money mostly as savings, and donate some of it to charity and try to help other people.
Jake, on the other side, wants to enjoy the money they won, and spend it on a new house, new car, be part of the upper class and hire driver services for his children, when they move to a private school.
The relationship between Lexi and Jake will begin to change, as they both will change during this period. This book is a perfect summary of what money may actually do to people and relationships, and how it may help them or destroy them completely.
I loved the drama where the friends were involved as well, also when the children played their part as well into the whole situation. It is crazy to see how easily children can be manipulated by words and wealth too, in their own little worlds.
I really wished I have seen more of Toma’s story and point of view, and had a proper closure to his chapter. His story was definitely my favorite one for sure!
<b><i>If you are a fan of thrillers and drama, you will definitely enjoy this book. It will keep you on the edge until the very last chapter. And that last chapter will change everything! Let me know once you’ve read it, because I am dying to talk to someone about that last revelation!</i></b>
I am extremely lucky to be part of the blog tour organised by the amazing team at HQ! Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for sending me this book in exchange for my review! Check out the other amazing participants of this blog tour as well:
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JUST-MY-LUCK-BTB.jpg?resize=594%2C1536&ssl=1"/>;
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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 Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
The synopsis was suitably intriguing, but there's always a slight worry that a fantasy romance is going to be a little cheesy.
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
When it is a director’s second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type – a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Illeana Douglas recommended In a Lonely Place (1950) in Movies (curated)
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Graveyard Book in Books
Sep 30, 2019
A different look at ghosts (1 more)
Flow of writing is great
Questions left unanswered (1 more)
There won't be a sequel
Neil Gaiman knows how to turn an innocent childhood into a terror-filled one. 'The Graveyard Book' revolves around a young boy named Nobody Owens. What makes him different from everyone else is that he lives in a graveyard where he's being raised by the ghostly residents. Nobody, or Bod (as his friends call him), ended up here after his family was brutally murdered, which actually doesn't seem to bother him too much throughout the story. Right from the beginning, readers get to follow the murderer as he makes his way through Bod's house, killing all the members of the family except for Bod, who fortunately manages to get away.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.