Search
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Jan 27, 2018
Nicholas Cage (2 more)
Great idea
Superb dialogue
Some damn fine fun with Cage and Blair
Contains spoilers, click to show
Two people who you should be able to count on for your safety as a child are your Mother and Father. But that doesn' ring true in this amazing little film by writer/director Brian Taylor.
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
Darren (1599 KP) rated We Still Kill The Old Way (2014) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: We Still Kill the Old Way starts as we see a new hooligan gang led by Aaron (Hatchered) causing havoc in the streets of London, they use their numbers to beat, harass or threaten their victims, which sees them clash with legendary Charlie Archer (Berkoff), killing him. Charlie’s brother Ritchie (Ogilvy) has been living away in Spain, with Susan Taylor (Doody) leading the investigation.
When Ritchie gets the news, he heads back to London in search for answers, which sees him bring back the old gang Roy (Ellison), Arthur (Cosmo) and Butch (Denham) to hunt down Aaron and his gang.
Thoughts on We Still Kill the Old Way
Characters – Ritchie is the respected former gangster of the streets of London, retired now, living in Spain, he returns after the murder of his brother, bring his old gang together to take on the younger gang that is running terror in the old neighbourhood. He remains in control of each situation knowing how to play each and everyone of the gang, police and neighbourhood to remain under the radar. Susan is the lead detective investigating the case, she wants a clean answer, though she does know what Ritchie is capable off. Roy is one of the gang, he enjoys helping Ritchie, missing the old ways the gang once had. Aaron is the leader of the gang of hooligans running chaos around London, his behaviour is complete disgrace, you will hate him from the opening scene, from the way he treats his girlfriend to the way he treats the elders.
Performances – Ian Ogilvy in the leading role gives us a proper cockney gangster figure we can believe in. Alison Doody makes for a solid local cop. Christopher Ellison will strike fear in anybody that crosses him, while Danny-Boy Hatchard makes his character truly disposable.
Story – The story follows a retired gangster that returns to his old stamping ground after his brother is murdered by a young gang causing problems in his old neighbourhood. This is the basic revenge film in the way Ritchie conducts his business, while mixing the idea that the new generation isn’t respecting the old style of the people who ran the area before them, they have no rules or manners. It is good to see the whole gang being truly hated and how respected the old generation is around the area. There are certain side stories that are overly tagged in and with Lauren is one of the worst characters in the history of film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is plenty of side ways pointed guns trying to be threatening, while having close up brutal punches being delivered. The crime side of the film uses the ideas of the two different generations of gangs in the underworld, this does give an element of comedy to how the older gang acts the town.
Settings – The film is set in London’s east end which shows us how the gangs operate around the neighbourhood.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital shoot out.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lauren’s decision-making.
Final Thoughts – This is a proper gangster film set in London which does work well with everything it is trying to do with the clash of gangs in London.
Overall: Fun gangster film.
When Ritchie gets the news, he heads back to London in search for answers, which sees him bring back the old gang Roy (Ellison), Arthur (Cosmo) and Butch (Denham) to hunt down Aaron and his gang.
Thoughts on We Still Kill the Old Way
Characters – Ritchie is the respected former gangster of the streets of London, retired now, living in Spain, he returns after the murder of his brother, bring his old gang together to take on the younger gang that is running terror in the old neighbourhood. He remains in control of each situation knowing how to play each and everyone of the gang, police and neighbourhood to remain under the radar. Susan is the lead detective investigating the case, she wants a clean answer, though she does know what Ritchie is capable off. Roy is one of the gang, he enjoys helping Ritchie, missing the old ways the gang once had. Aaron is the leader of the gang of hooligans running chaos around London, his behaviour is complete disgrace, you will hate him from the opening scene, from the way he treats his girlfriend to the way he treats the elders.
Performances – Ian Ogilvy in the leading role gives us a proper cockney gangster figure we can believe in. Alison Doody makes for a solid local cop. Christopher Ellison will strike fear in anybody that crosses him, while Danny-Boy Hatchard makes his character truly disposable.
Story – The story follows a retired gangster that returns to his old stamping ground after his brother is murdered by a young gang causing problems in his old neighbourhood. This is the basic revenge film in the way Ritchie conducts his business, while mixing the idea that the new generation isn’t respecting the old style of the people who ran the area before them, they have no rules or manners. It is good to see the whole gang being truly hated and how respected the old generation is around the area. There are certain side stories that are overly tagged in and with Lauren is one of the worst characters in the history of film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is plenty of side ways pointed guns trying to be threatening, while having close up brutal punches being delivered. The crime side of the film uses the ideas of the two different generations of gangs in the underworld, this does give an element of comedy to how the older gang acts the town.
Settings – The film is set in London’s east end which shows us how the gangs operate around the neighbourhood.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital shoot out.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Lauren’s decision-making.
Final Thoughts – This is a proper gangster film set in London which does work well with everything it is trying to do with the clash of gangs in London.
Overall: Fun gangster film.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Raven Boys in Books
Apr 20, 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>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3053741934">The Raven Boys</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3255973750">The Dream Thieves</a> - Not Read Yet
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Book-Review-Banner-30.png"/>;
Even if Blue hadn't been told her true love would die if she kissed him, she would stay away from boys. Especially the ones from the local private school. Known as Raven Boys, they only mean trouble.
<b>But this is the year that everything will change for Blue.</b>
This is the year that she will be drawn into the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys. And the year Blue will discover that magic does exist.
<b>This is the year she will fall in love.</b>
<b><i>"Blue, I know you're not an idiot. It's just, sometimes smart people do dumb things."</i></b>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9pCUtygUUw/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IMG_20200312_170023_767-300x300.jpg"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I enjoyed The Raven Boys. I have been meaning to read this book for such a long time, and I am so happy I finally managed to scratch it off my list.
I loved the beginning and I loved Blue and her witch family. It gave me vibes of Charmed - a TV Show that was my favourite when I was growing up.
Her family does readings and Blue has known her prediction her whole life. She knows that if she kisses her true love, he will die. Even though everyone else in her family has powers, Blue doesn’t. Her power is to amplify other people’s superpowers. So when her family does a reading and Blue is present, they can predict the future better.
When Blue meets The Raven Boys, she knows they’re trouble. But there is an opportunity for her to really see and feel magic, something she hasn’t ever done before, and this temptation will be too much for her to resist.
<b><i>"Once Arthur knew the grail exited, how could he not look for it?"</i></b>
<b>I loved The Raven Boys gang.</b>
They were awesome, and brutal, and handsome and smart. They all had their own challenges and character development throughout the book and I enjoyed watching them grow.
I was and still am so unsure about that ending and the fact that I was left more confused than when I started reading the book. There is a feeling I have like I need to re-read this book to fully understand everything, and it’s not a very good vibe.
I still enjoyed it and would definitely read the second book, but I was hoping this would be one of my favourite books and it wasn’t. Maybe the next time around, eh?
I highly recommend it if you love fantasy, magic, handsome boys and young-adult books in general. It is a very interesting book, with lots of mysteries and twists, and a very confusing ending (which some may enjoy).
<b><i>"People shout when they don't have the vocabulary to whisper."</i></b>
<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>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3053741934">The Raven Boys</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3255973750">The Dream Thieves</a> - Not Read Yet
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Book-Review-Banner-30.png"/>;
Even if Blue hadn't been told her true love would die if she kissed him, she would stay away from boys. Especially the ones from the local private school. Known as Raven Boys, they only mean trouble.
<b>But this is the year that everything will change for Blue.</b>
This is the year that she will be drawn into the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys. And the year Blue will discover that magic does exist.
<b>This is the year she will fall in love.</b>
<b><i>"Blue, I know you're not an idiot. It's just, sometimes smart people do dumb things."</i></b>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9pCUtygUUw/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IMG_20200312_170023_767-300x300.jpg"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I enjoyed The Raven Boys. I have been meaning to read this book for such a long time, and I am so happy I finally managed to scratch it off my list.
I loved the beginning and I loved Blue and her witch family. It gave me vibes of Charmed - a TV Show that was my favourite when I was growing up.
Her family does readings and Blue has known her prediction her whole life. She knows that if she kisses her true love, he will die. Even though everyone else in her family has powers, Blue doesn’t. Her power is to amplify other people’s superpowers. So when her family does a reading and Blue is present, they can predict the future better.
When Blue meets The Raven Boys, she knows they’re trouble. But there is an opportunity for her to really see and feel magic, something she hasn’t ever done before, and this temptation will be too much for her to resist.
<b><i>"Once Arthur knew the grail exited, how could he not look for it?"</i></b>
<b>I loved The Raven Boys gang.</b>
They were awesome, and brutal, and handsome and smart. They all had their own challenges and character development throughout the book and I enjoyed watching them grow.
I was and still am so unsure about that ending and the fact that I was left more confused than when I started reading the book. There is a feeling I have like I need to re-read this book to fully understand everything, and it’s not a very good vibe.
I still enjoyed it and would definitely read the second book, but I was hoping this would be one of my favourite books and it wasn’t. Maybe the next time around, eh?
I highly recommend it if you love fantasy, magic, handsome boys and young-adult books in general. It is a very interesting book, with lots of mysteries and twists, and a very confusing ending (which some may enjoy).
<b><i>"People shout when they don't have the vocabulary to whisper."</i></b>
<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>;
Weirdwood Manor
Book and Education
App
A mighty darkness is unleashed on the Library, a force that tests the limits of even Arthur’s...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Woman in Black in Books
Jan 1, 2020
Great paranormal aspect (1 more)
Good narrative
Overuse of some words (1 more)
Some scenes that could have been written better
In Susan Hill's novel, "The Woman in Black," she puts a small twist on an urban legend that is widely known to most - - - 'the lady in white,' which if you haven't heard of it, it's a spectral woman that is seen throughout the world, dressed all in white, only to show up in places of tragic events. This novel only has one main character, Arthur Kipps, a 23-year-old young man who is a lawyer in late 1800's England. He usually takes care of the conveyance of property leases, but one day, when his boss, Mr. Bentley, hands over a case and responsibility of finding a newly deceased's Last Will and Testament for their lawfirm, Kipp graciously accepts the new adventure without knowing that what is ahead will haunt him the rest of his life.
As Kipp soon finds out after traveling to the town just outside of the deceased's home, there is more to this woman, Alice Drablow, than just an old hermit- - - anytime her name is mentioned, people fall silent; the same goes for her home: Eel Marsh House. Kipp doesn't allow this to put him off from doing his job, but when he finds out about the marshes the house lives on, he is told that there are only certain times of the day that he can cross before the marshes become too flooded to cross. 'The Woman in Black' has spine-chilling moments and great descriptive details to make this a quick ghost story to be enjoyed.
Before Kipp heads off to the Eel Marsh House, he must attend Mrs. Drablow's funeral; he is accompanied by a man named Mr. Jerome, an agent that had dealt with Mrs. Drablow's property and land business while she was alive. While at the church, only one other person turns up for the funeral: a woman dressed all in black. Kipp takes note that this woman does not look well and, being the gentleman that he is, tells himself that he will offer his arm to her for stability after the funeral, but when they are leaving the church yard, the woman is suddenly gone. Kipp brings this up to Mr. Jerome, but he merely states that they were the only ones at the funeral.
The best scene to come is Kipp's first night at Eel Marsh House, where he experiences his first real scare in the ruins close by the house that is a dilapidated cemetery. " Suddenly conscious of the cold and the extreme bleakness and eeriness of the spot and of the gathering dusk of the November afternoon, and not wanting my spirits to become so depressed that I might begin to be affected by all sorts of morbid fancies, I was about to leave, and walk briskly back to the house, where I intended to switch on a good many lights and even light a small fire if it were possible, before beginning my preliminary work on Mrs. Drablow's papers. But, as I turned away, I glanced once again round the burial ground and then I saw again the woman with the wasted face, who had been at Mrs. Drablow's funeral. She was at the far end of the plot, close to one of the few upright headstones, and she wore the same clothing and bonnet, but it seemed to have slipped back so that I could make out her face a little more clearly. "
Over the entire course of the book, Kipp only visits the house one more time after this incident. The book has a good story, but it isn't flawless; first, there is the overuse of the word 'estuary,' which is practically used on every page whenever Kipp is at the Eel Marsh House or discussing it. It gets very tiresome. There is also instances of bad writing, where I feel that Hill could have delivered the scenes better than she did: Kipp changing his mind the very next sentence (if you read my reviews pretty regularly, you will realize that I can't stand it when a character contradicts themselves within a page or two), and then Kipp saying he can't do something, than directly after, does it. When you read this book, you will realize that Kipp is not the type of character that would change his mind on a whim.
Kipp is also an interesting character for a male set in this era. Most men in the late 1800's were stoic and refused to show an ounce of emotion in public, but Kipp is not afraid to have other men see him fall apart, and he is also very considerate of other people. There isn't much of a backstory on where Kipp came from or how his parents raised him, but it wasn't really needed for this story. Yet, we meet Kipp's step-children and his first and second wife, without too much of a story about them, so when certain things happen (to not give a spoiler), it doesn't really leave an impression.
There isn't much I can say that wouldn't give away what makes this story enjoyable to read. Overall, this is a good and quick ghost story that may cause shivers for some, but even if it doesn't, the Woman in Black is a must-read for lovers of the paranormal. To me, this seems like a good book to read while traveling because it's easy to pick up and set down without getting lost as to what was going on.
As Kipp soon finds out after traveling to the town just outside of the deceased's home, there is more to this woman, Alice Drablow, than just an old hermit- - - anytime her name is mentioned, people fall silent; the same goes for her home: Eel Marsh House. Kipp doesn't allow this to put him off from doing his job, but when he finds out about the marshes the house lives on, he is told that there are only certain times of the day that he can cross before the marshes become too flooded to cross. 'The Woman in Black' has spine-chilling moments and great descriptive details to make this a quick ghost story to be enjoyed.
Before Kipp heads off to the Eel Marsh House, he must attend Mrs. Drablow's funeral; he is accompanied by a man named Mr. Jerome, an agent that had dealt with Mrs. Drablow's property and land business while she was alive. While at the church, only one other person turns up for the funeral: a woman dressed all in black. Kipp takes note that this woman does not look well and, being the gentleman that he is, tells himself that he will offer his arm to her for stability after the funeral, but when they are leaving the church yard, the woman is suddenly gone. Kipp brings this up to Mr. Jerome, but he merely states that they were the only ones at the funeral.
The best scene to come is Kipp's first night at Eel Marsh House, where he experiences his first real scare in the ruins close by the house that is a dilapidated cemetery. " Suddenly conscious of the cold and the extreme bleakness and eeriness of the spot and of the gathering dusk of the November afternoon, and not wanting my spirits to become so depressed that I might begin to be affected by all sorts of morbid fancies, I was about to leave, and walk briskly back to the house, where I intended to switch on a good many lights and even light a small fire if it were possible, before beginning my preliminary work on Mrs. Drablow's papers. But, as I turned away, I glanced once again round the burial ground and then I saw again the woman with the wasted face, who had been at Mrs. Drablow's funeral. She was at the far end of the plot, close to one of the few upright headstones, and she wore the same clothing and bonnet, but it seemed to have slipped back so that I could make out her face a little more clearly. "
Over the entire course of the book, Kipp only visits the house one more time after this incident. The book has a good story, but it isn't flawless; first, there is the overuse of the word 'estuary,' which is practically used on every page whenever Kipp is at the Eel Marsh House or discussing it. It gets very tiresome. There is also instances of bad writing, where I feel that Hill could have delivered the scenes better than she did: Kipp changing his mind the very next sentence (if you read my reviews pretty regularly, you will realize that I can't stand it when a character contradicts themselves within a page or two), and then Kipp saying he can't do something, than directly after, does it. When you read this book, you will realize that Kipp is not the type of character that would change his mind on a whim.
Kipp is also an interesting character for a male set in this era. Most men in the late 1800's were stoic and refused to show an ounce of emotion in public, but Kipp is not afraid to have other men see him fall apart, and he is also very considerate of other people. There isn't much of a backstory on where Kipp came from or how his parents raised him, but it wasn't really needed for this story. Yet, we meet Kipp's step-children and his first and second wife, without too much of a story about them, so when certain things happen (to not give a spoiler), it doesn't really leave an impression.
There isn't much I can say that wouldn't give away what makes this story enjoyable to read. Overall, this is a good and quick ghost story that may cause shivers for some, but even if it doesn't, the Woman in Black is a must-read for lovers of the paranormal. To me, this seems like a good book to read while traveling because it's easy to pick up and set down without getting lost as to what was going on.