Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
Songbot: On-Demand Talk Shows & Songs
News and Music
App
Songbot is a powerful tool that can search every radio station in the world for the song you want to...
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Over the Holidays in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Summary: Vanessa is experiencing craziness from the holidays like she never has before: her husband’s relatives (who are extremely annoying) are visiting and taking over her holiday while he is out of town until Christmas eve, which means she has to entertain them, her sister is acting like she’s unrelated because she’s so wrapped up in her art (which she’s struggling with) and she’s trying desperately not to have an affair with the hansom playwright she’s working with…
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
My thoughts: It was really hard for me to see what the point of this book was, but i think it centered around holiday traditions, gifts, really weird relatives, and baking your pies instead of buying them from a store. there was no focus on the meaning of Christmas (Christ. hence, Christmas.) and i felt like the character’s decisions were not made based on what was right and the reason behind why it was right, but only to keep their dignity. the book seemed shallow in that sense. I really have a hard time understanding what these people were celebrating during Christmas—if you’re not celebrating the baby Jesus, what are you eating turkey for anyway?
The Plot: this book was a path through Christmas and New Year celebrations, so it took the four most important characters (Vanessa, her sister Thea, mother in-law Patience, and Patience’s daughter Libby) and told their Christmas stories from each of their perspectives. there were parts of the story that were really surprising—for instance, i didn’t expect what happened with Neil or Cal, and was very anxious to find out what happened.
The Characters: there were so many new characters all thrown at you at once in the beginning of the book, it’s a little tough to keep up with. Vanessa seemed to have her head on reasonably straight, which i liked. Thea though, out of all the characters, was the one who had the best grip on reality (maybe that’s just because she and I are both crazy temperamental artists, though). Patience (who was not patient) seemed trivial and silly and a little ditzy, which was perfect for her. I don’t think i was supposed to particularly like her. at least, i hope that’s the case. (because i didn’t.) Libby seemed melodramatic and had an overrated view of sex. but her love for her cousins made her endearing.
The Writing: there was a lot of swearing in this book. a lot. which really doesn’t bother me that much, because when i’m reading i skip over it and don’t really register it, but it might bother other people. the writing style in general seemed very casual, and some things were over described—i really don’t care if the toilet that she peed into was stainless steel or porcelain, and i don’t really want to know every detail of a woman’s Christmas shopping.
Recommendation and rating: I gave this book a 2 out of five, if you look on my side bar you see that I wrote “you might enjoy it, but you're really not missing anything if you skip it.” I rated it that way because I personally didn’t connect with this book (probably because of my view of Christmas being centered around Christ, not pie.) and would have lived to see tomorrow if I hadn’t read it. however, if you look below, there is a list of other blogs on this tour, and other people may tell you that it was fantastic. I guess this one just wasn’t for me. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a light quick fun read, ages 16+
check out the rest of the blog tour:
*Rundpinne: http://www.rundpinne.blogspot.com
*Frugal Plus: http://frugalplus.com/
*The Life (And Lies) of an Inanimate Flying Object:
http://haleymathiot.blogspot.com/
*Drey’s Library: http://dreyslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Wendi’s Book Corner: http://wendisbookcorner.blogspot.com/
*Opinionated? Me? : http://readingwatchingliving.blogspot.com/
*Me, My Book and the Couch:
http://memybookandthecouch.blogspot.com/
*Libby’s Library News: http://www.libslibrary.blogspot.com/
*Bookin’ With Bingo: http://bookinwithbingo.blogspot.com/
*Books, Movies, and Chinese Food:
http://books-movies-chinesefood.blogspot.com/
*Psychotic State: http://www.psychoticstate.blogspot.com/
*Readaholic: http://bridget3420.blogspot.com/
*That’s A Novel Idea: http://thatsanovelidea.blogspot.com
*All About {N}: http://www.bookwormygirl.blogspot.com/
*Starting Fresh: http://startingfresh-gaby317.blogspot.com/
*A Sea of Books: http://aseaofbooks.blogspot.com/
*Just Another New Blog: http://justanothernewblog.blogspot.com/
*Blog Business World: http://www.blogbusinessworld.blogspot.com
*My Friend Amy: http://www.myfriendamysblog.com
*Cheryl’s Book Nook: http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/
*One Person’s Journey Through A World of Books:
http://bookjourney.wordpress.com/
*I Read: http://sumanam.wordpress.com/
*So Many Books, So Little Time:
http://purplg8r-somanybooks.blogspot.com/
*Keep on Booking: http://keeponbooking.blogspot.com
*Reading at the Beach: http://ilratb.blogspot.com/
*Found Not Lost: http://jmomfinds.amoores.com/
*Brizmus Blogs Books: http://brizmusblogsbooks.blogspot.com/
*Book Reviews by Buuklvr81: http://www.buuklvr81.blogspot.com/
Thank you to Sarah Reidy from Pocket Books for providing me with my review copy.
win this copy of my book at haleymathiot.blogspot.com
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Based on a true story, Blinded by the Light follows the life of Javed, a down-on-his-luck Pakistani teenager living in Great Britain in the 1980s, who is in a social stranglehold by his strict father. He just wants to live a life like any other kid his age, and hang out with his friends, and go to parties, and maybe even meet a girl, but his overbearing dad has other expectations and plans for him. Being that they’re minorities in a foreign country in a time of racism, Javed’s father wants him to keep his head down and put his family first and foremost. That means living the life his father chooses for him, and not being able to live the life he desires. Feeling trapped by his circumstances, Javed’s bleak outlook becomes changed completely after he makes a new friend at school who introduces him to the music of the All-American legend, Bruce Springsteen.
One stormy night, fueled by his frustrations with his family, Javed turns to the cassette tapes he borrowed from his friend, and listens to “The Boss” for the very first time. It’s an instantly cathartic and unforgettably life-changing experience. The words speak to him in a way that no song ever has before. The lyrics speak of his ambitions and know his struggles and pain. It’s as if suddenly through the songs of Springsteen, Javed has found his voice and a guiding light. He’s instantly transformed by it, and is given a purpose and a passion to pursue it. For him, the music is the spark to light the fire to his ambitions; to leave his small town, to escape poverty, to resist his father’s oppression, to live on his own accord, to become a writer, and to feed his hungry heart.
As a writer and a lover of Springsteen myself, I connected with Blinded by the Light on a profoundly personal level. Springsteen’s music has spoken to me in a similar fashion as it does to Javed in the film. While I’m not the super fan that he is, I like to think we all have comparable experiences with certain musical artists who resonate with us deep in our souls. Bruce’s music in particular speaks to the common man, and it rallies against the injustices of the world in the pursuit of the American dream. I can’t think of a single musician that I personally find to be more motivational than him. It is my hope that people will watch this movie, particularly those who are unfamiliar with the music of Bruce Springsteen, and they’ll have a reaction to it much like Javed in this movie.
It goes without saying that the soundtrack in Blinded by the Light is fantastic. It has a nice mix of classic hits as well as some lesser known Springsteen songs, including some live versions, and they’re all put to good use here. Out of all of the recent movies inspired by real-life musicians, including Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman, and Yesterday, Blinded by the Light is by far my personal favorite. There are no poor cover songs nor bad lip synching to be found here. What you get is 100% The Boss. In a few parts, the movie even breaks out into full-on dancing musical numbers. While they’re a little cheesy and even feel a bit out of place, I found that they remained true to the music and were simply too much fun not to enjoy.
Director Gurinder Chadha does a fine job crafting Javed’s story and all of its complexities while also paying homage to The Boss. The movie explores our innate desire for freedom and finding ourselves, while also exposing the sacrifices we often must make in life for those we love. The film additionally explores social issues of the era, including political turmoil, fascist movements, and racism, which Javed faces first-hand as a Pakistani in England, and which unfortunately still feel uncomfortably relevant today. Javed is played by Viveik Kalra in his motion-picture debut, and he is immensely likable and relatable in his performance. The cast as a whole is pretty good, with the standouts being Hayley Atwell as Javed’s teacher, Ms. Clay, who encourages him to continue with his writing, as well as Kulvinder Ghir, who plays Javed’s controlling father. I also liked Aaron Phagura as Roops, Javed’s loyal Bruce-Springsteen-cassette-tape-sharing friend. We all could use more friends like him!
Overall, Blinded by the Light is a loving tribute to the music of Bruce Springsteen, but more than anything, it’s an emotional, identifiable, and uplifting tale about reaching for your dreams. The struggles that Javed faces resonate brilliantly with the messages of the music, and his story is an inspiring one worth hearing. Springsteen fans in particular definitely won’t want to miss this movie, but I think regardless of your interest or familiarity with Springsteen and his music, you’re likely to find something to enjoy here. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll even walk out of the theater as a fan.
One stormy night, fueled by his frustrations with his family, Javed turns to the cassette tapes he borrowed from his friend, and listens to “The Boss” for the very first time. It’s an instantly cathartic and unforgettably life-changing experience. The words speak to him in a way that no song ever has before. The lyrics speak of his ambitions and know his struggles and pain. It’s as if suddenly through the songs of Springsteen, Javed has found his voice and a guiding light. He’s instantly transformed by it, and is given a purpose and a passion to pursue it. For him, the music is the spark to light the fire to his ambitions; to leave his small town, to escape poverty, to resist his father’s oppression, to live on his own accord, to become a writer, and to feed his hungry heart.
As a writer and a lover of Springsteen myself, I connected with Blinded by the Light on a profoundly personal level. Springsteen’s music has spoken to me in a similar fashion as it does to Javed in the film. While I’m not the super fan that he is, I like to think we all have comparable experiences with certain musical artists who resonate with us deep in our souls. Bruce’s music in particular speaks to the common man, and it rallies against the injustices of the world in the pursuit of the American dream. I can’t think of a single musician that I personally find to be more motivational than him. It is my hope that people will watch this movie, particularly those who are unfamiliar with the music of Bruce Springsteen, and they’ll have a reaction to it much like Javed in this movie.
It goes without saying that the soundtrack in Blinded by the Light is fantastic. It has a nice mix of classic hits as well as some lesser known Springsteen songs, including some live versions, and they’re all put to good use here. Out of all of the recent movies inspired by real-life musicians, including Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman, and Yesterday, Blinded by the Light is by far my personal favorite. There are no poor cover songs nor bad lip synching to be found here. What you get is 100% The Boss. In a few parts, the movie even breaks out into full-on dancing musical numbers. While they’re a little cheesy and even feel a bit out of place, I found that they remained true to the music and were simply too much fun not to enjoy.
Director Gurinder Chadha does a fine job crafting Javed’s story and all of its complexities while also paying homage to The Boss. The movie explores our innate desire for freedom and finding ourselves, while also exposing the sacrifices we often must make in life for those we love. The film additionally explores social issues of the era, including political turmoil, fascist movements, and racism, which Javed faces first-hand as a Pakistani in England, and which unfortunately still feel uncomfortably relevant today. Javed is played by Viveik Kalra in his motion-picture debut, and he is immensely likable and relatable in his performance. The cast as a whole is pretty good, with the standouts being Hayley Atwell as Javed’s teacher, Ms. Clay, who encourages him to continue with his writing, as well as Kulvinder Ghir, who plays Javed’s controlling father. I also liked Aaron Phagura as Roops, Javed’s loyal Bruce-Springsteen-cassette-tape-sharing friend. We all could use more friends like him!
Overall, Blinded by the Light is a loving tribute to the music of Bruce Springsteen, but more than anything, it’s an emotional, identifiable, and uplifting tale about reaching for your dreams. The struggles that Javed faces resonate brilliantly with the messages of the music, and his story is an inspiring one worth hearing. Springsteen fans in particular definitely won’t want to miss this movie, but I think regardless of your interest or familiarity with Springsteen and his music, you’re likely to find something to enjoy here. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll even walk out of the theater as a fan.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Fault In Our Stars (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jun 26, 2019)
Undoubtedly one of the great love stories of our time. (3 more)
Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are a perfect match.
John Green's novel is brilliantly adapted to the silver screen.
This is a movie that will stay with you long after it's over.
On the surface, it's easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair, but I can fortunately say that this is one of the great love stories of our time.
Based on John Green’s popular young adult novel, The Fault in Our Stars is a film that is profoundly beautiful, eloquent and heartfelt. It tells of an extraordinary love between two unforgettable characters who are brought together by similarly ill-fated circumstances. Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters are both victims of cancer. Although they do their best to hide it, these two young adults are each afraid of their ominous and unstable futures. They’re just trying to live purposeful lives and experience life like normal teenagers, but the looming threat of an untimely death impedes that desire. However, for a film filled with so much uncertainty, I can fortunately say that there is little doubt that The Fault in Our Stars is one of the great love stories of our time.
On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair. I’ll confess that I went into the theater expecting to be fully surrounded by crying teenage girls, while I would be quietly laughing to myself at their heartache. What I surely didn’t anticipate, however, was to be so deeply drawn into the film. Even more surprising is the fact that The Fault in Our Stars has actually turned out to be my favorite movie of the year so far. This is a film that is sincerely heartfelt and unflinchingly genuine. It brings truth to the romantic fantasies we have, and teaches us that we can’t let the fear of possible heartache hold us back from the endless potential of love.
Make no mistake about it, The Fault in Our Stars is a tear-jerker. It’s difficult to watch these lovable characters endure such unjustifiable hardship. Hazel and Augustus are each forced to face a formidable fate that they shouldn’t have to. I really felt a strong attachment to both of them, and found them to be remarkably identifiable. This connection makes it all the more unsettling when their situations turn dire. The reason that The Fault in Our Stars manages to be so effective is because of its authenticity and accessibility. The characters are not only admirable, but relatable. They’re not simply reduced to being unfortunate young cancer patients that we’re meant to feel sorry for. While of course we can sympathize with their condition, it is their compassion and the content of their characters that make them so compelling.
While the film features its fair share of tragedy, I should make it clear that it’s not heart-wrenchingly malicious in the way it deals with its ensuing sadness. This is not a film that is deliberately trying to make anyone feel bad. It is merely being honest in its depiction of the unfairness that often exists in life. While you very well might cry when watching the film, it’s not entirely depressing and hopeless. In fact, I would argue that The Fault in Our Stars is more pleasant than painful. The sadness it makes you feel ends up all being worthwhile because of the joyous, unforgettable memories the movie creates along the way. This is a film that will stay with you long after seeing it. To answer the question you’re all wondering: no, the movie didn’t make me cry. Though my lack of tears is not a particularly good indicator of the emotional quality of the film. I don’t really allow myself to cry during movies, but I certainly came close, and it undeniably left me deeply touched and forever grateful that I watched it.
Being that this is a romance, I must warn you that this isn’t a movie for everyone. Truth be told, I’m a sucker for a good romance, but I’m aware not everyone has the patience for these kind of movies. The Fault in Our Stars is a slow-burning journey that takes its time to relish in the moments. It does this skillfully, maintaining a steady, balanced pace while building up to a powerful climax. Some may find the film to be a little too cutesy, but I think anyone who approaches it with an open-mind will find that it’s legitimately a really great film. My only real criticism of the movie involves the awkward return of a particular character towards the end of the movie. It makes for a rather unwelcome and perplexing intrusion, although it does at least help to set up the film’s wonderful ending.
John Green’s story is refreshing, witty, and modern. It is not only insightful in its depiction of love and life, but also offers an amazing attention to detail. It nails the feelings of love, and perfectly captures the life of being a teenager. The characters created by Green truly come to life in this film. Divergent star Shailene Woodley shines as Hazel, a young woman suffering from terminal thyroid cancer. Additionally, Ansel Elgort is incredibly charming as Augustus, a high school basketball star whose career ended short when cancer turned him into an amputee. The two of them are a perfect complementary match. Laura Dern also puts in a commendable performance as Hazel’s mom, a selfless, loving parent and companion. The film’s soundtrack is sensational. It’s appropriately fitting and delightful, featuring great work by artists such as Ed Sheeran, Birdy, and Ray LaMontagne. Every aspect of the movie comes together to produce a thoroughly poignant and relevant package.
The Fault in Our Stars is a film that speaks to our generation. It stares boldly into our fears of the eminent death that haunts us all, and makes no attempt to glamorize it. Even though it’s about a pair of teenagers, it’s not afraid to deal with mature content. It’s actually all the more engrossing and troubling because these two characters are young. They’re already facing a pivotal time in their lives and are learning to experience the world on their own accord, and yet their journeys are plagued by the callous complications of cancer. Their age gives the film a stronger emotional impact, emphasizing the preciousness of life and the importance of living it to the fullest. The Fault in Our Stars is a smart and stimulating movie, and just like its star characters, it is wholly worthy of remembrance.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 7.12.14.)
On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as being a sappy teenage love affair. I’ll confess that I went into the theater expecting to be fully surrounded by crying teenage girls, while I would be quietly laughing to myself at their heartache. What I surely didn’t anticipate, however, was to be so deeply drawn into the film. Even more surprising is the fact that The Fault in Our Stars has actually turned out to be my favorite movie of the year so far. This is a film that is sincerely heartfelt and unflinchingly genuine. It brings truth to the romantic fantasies we have, and teaches us that we can’t let the fear of possible heartache hold us back from the endless potential of love.
Make no mistake about it, The Fault in Our Stars is a tear-jerker. It’s difficult to watch these lovable characters endure such unjustifiable hardship. Hazel and Augustus are each forced to face a formidable fate that they shouldn’t have to. I really felt a strong attachment to both of them, and found them to be remarkably identifiable. This connection makes it all the more unsettling when their situations turn dire. The reason that The Fault in Our Stars manages to be so effective is because of its authenticity and accessibility. The characters are not only admirable, but relatable. They’re not simply reduced to being unfortunate young cancer patients that we’re meant to feel sorry for. While of course we can sympathize with their condition, it is their compassion and the content of their characters that make them so compelling.
While the film features its fair share of tragedy, I should make it clear that it’s not heart-wrenchingly malicious in the way it deals with its ensuing sadness. This is not a film that is deliberately trying to make anyone feel bad. It is merely being honest in its depiction of the unfairness that often exists in life. While you very well might cry when watching the film, it’s not entirely depressing and hopeless. In fact, I would argue that The Fault in Our Stars is more pleasant than painful. The sadness it makes you feel ends up all being worthwhile because of the joyous, unforgettable memories the movie creates along the way. This is a film that will stay with you long after seeing it. To answer the question you’re all wondering: no, the movie didn’t make me cry. Though my lack of tears is not a particularly good indicator of the emotional quality of the film. I don’t really allow myself to cry during movies, but I certainly came close, and it undeniably left me deeply touched and forever grateful that I watched it.
Being that this is a romance, I must warn you that this isn’t a movie for everyone. Truth be told, I’m a sucker for a good romance, but I’m aware not everyone has the patience for these kind of movies. The Fault in Our Stars is a slow-burning journey that takes its time to relish in the moments. It does this skillfully, maintaining a steady, balanced pace while building up to a powerful climax. Some may find the film to be a little too cutesy, but I think anyone who approaches it with an open-mind will find that it’s legitimately a really great film. My only real criticism of the movie involves the awkward return of a particular character towards the end of the movie. It makes for a rather unwelcome and perplexing intrusion, although it does at least help to set up the film’s wonderful ending.
John Green’s story is refreshing, witty, and modern. It is not only insightful in its depiction of love and life, but also offers an amazing attention to detail. It nails the feelings of love, and perfectly captures the life of being a teenager. The characters created by Green truly come to life in this film. Divergent star Shailene Woodley shines as Hazel, a young woman suffering from terminal thyroid cancer. Additionally, Ansel Elgort is incredibly charming as Augustus, a high school basketball star whose career ended short when cancer turned him into an amputee. The two of them are a perfect complementary match. Laura Dern also puts in a commendable performance as Hazel’s mom, a selfless, loving parent and companion. The film’s soundtrack is sensational. It’s appropriately fitting and delightful, featuring great work by artists such as Ed Sheeran, Birdy, and Ray LaMontagne. Every aspect of the movie comes together to produce a thoroughly poignant and relevant package.
The Fault in Our Stars is a film that speaks to our generation. It stares boldly into our fears of the eminent death that haunts us all, and makes no attempt to glamorize it. Even though it’s about a pair of teenagers, it’s not afraid to deal with mature content. It’s actually all the more engrossing and troubling because these two characters are young. They’re already facing a pivotal time in their lives and are learning to experience the world on their own accord, and yet their journeys are plagued by the callous complications of cancer. Their age gives the film a stronger emotional impact, emphasizing the preciousness of life and the importance of living it to the fullest. The Fault in Our Stars is a smart and stimulating movie, and just like its star characters, it is wholly worthy of remembrance.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 7.12.14.)