Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols by The Sex Pistols in Music
Nov 2, 2017
The ultimate reset switch on the musical chart machine
This album changed everything and brought rock ‘n roll music back down to ground level where it belongs. It perfectly captured the mindset of a generation and it was the turning point that was so badly needed at that point in musical history. These four lads were saying exactly what they meant and we could hear their pain and frustration through Lydon’s voice as he screamed down the microphone at us. This album is gripping from start to finish and full of strikingly relevant lyrics even today. Without Never Mind The Bollocks, you can forget Oasis or Nirvana or Green Day or any punk band to come after ’77 for that matter. This album had to happen as it totally changed the course of rock ‘n roll history for the better and gave us all what we wanted again. This band is as important to rock ‘n roll music and British culture as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and they only ever released the one album, that is how important this record is. This album affected the style of an entire generation, it affected the politicians and it gave the how the majority of the country was feeling a united voice. The Tory government and the Royal Family may be scum, but it is hard to argue the fact that they have inspired some of the best music over the last 50 years. This album defines what it means to be young and pissed off and overlooked by the older generations who hold the power. It is an attack launched at anyone who has ever looked down their nose at anyone else. It is the quintessential lesson in how to compose a legendary rock n’ roll album and it reminded the world that you don’t need a bunch of overcomplicated instrumentals or 16 minute long interludes to make a great record, all you need is a few instruments, some raw talent and a determination to tell people how it really is. The Pistols wear their hearts on their sleeve in this record, both through their instruments and their lyrics, there is so much feeling and passion and genuine dissatisfaction on this record, yet it is also so careless and spur of the moment and that combination results in one of the greatest albums of the last half century in my opinion.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
Mothergamer (1511 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Assassin's Creed III in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
So after a long hiatus, I finished Assassin's Creed III. Did I like the game? Yes, definitely. Did I love it? Not so much. First let's get the good things out of the way. I really liked that there was a new world to explore and a great part of history to be involved in; the Revolutionary War. This made for a lot of interesting missions, side quests, and battles. I did like the new costume designs for the game and I definitely liked the new weapons. I did like seeing quite a few historical faces in the game and some of them had some pretty good missions. The story was fairly interesting especially towards the end when further details are revealed answering a lot of questions from the previous game. While I did wish for more city exploration, I did enjoy exploring the frontier areas because it was new and there was some interesting things going on out there.
Now, let us get to the parts that I found mildly disappointing and the parts that were so infuriating they got A LOT of swearing from me.
1.Connor Is A Wooden Boy: Connor while an interesting character, came across as wooden and I wasn't really feeling the passion from him or any emotion really. Even when he was supposed to be angry, it just came across as angst filled teenager. Shouldn't he be angrier about some of the things that have happened? I mean I know I would be full on raging if half the stuff he survives in this game happened to me. Speaking in a flat monotone in every situation is just not working for me. I also wish they had done a bit more with the story about Connor's tribe because it seemed like they were just a blip of a plot point and not much else which was a little disappointing. There's also this sense of Connor just being along for the ride and even as a full fledged assassin he doesn't really get to shine, so his story seems lost and smacks of missed opportunity. Bottom line, the pacing is off and that's never good when your main character doesn't feel like he's the main character to you.
2. The damned lock picking: Really, how hard is it to have decent controls for lock picking the chests you find in the game? I suggest that all those game developers go play all the Thief games so they can see how it's done. There is no excuse that late in the game for shoddy controls. Hold both buttons down, swirl around to find the correct "signal" and realize that you have the skills of a drunken monkey when you can't get the damn thing open. Also file under "the right signal my effing ass" because it was ridiculous.
3. Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Mission: Yes, they did their research and yes, it was cool they had that in the game. However, never have I wanted so badly to shove a historical person off a horse. Having to constantly ask the man for directions while he yelled at me, "More to the left! No, more right!" made me seriously consider handing him over to the enemy. It was only for a minute, I swear.
4. THE DAMN NAVAL BATTLES: There is a good reason why that is in all caps. There is no real learning curve here. It's pretty much a learn or sink your ship situation here. While I get that the ships can't turn on a dime just like real ships from that era; the controls are pardon my French, utter shit. Not only are they clunky, there are some questionable load times for firing the various cannons and lord help you if you end up getting turned around and smashing on some rocks. One of the naval battles was so damn infuriating, my husband Ron had to step in and finish it for me. Yes, it was that bad.
5. The Chasing Lee Mission: This was the final mission in Connor's main story and it made me want to tear my hair out and scream out my frustration. I did scream in fact. Many times. First there's the optional objectives of don't shove anyone while you're running, followed by don't let any of the British soldiers touch you. So instead of oh I don't know getting to shoot murdering bad guy in the face, you have to run an obstacle course full of people, things, and a burning ship like you're an Olympic marathon champ. Then we factor in, how Lee is only five steps away from you but you get the desynchronization message if you don't get closer to him. At one point I was standing right IN FRONT of him in the burning ship; I could have had him right there, but because it wasn't part of the "story" he took off running and I got that message. I finally did finish that mission and the payoff for it wasn't really worth it; trust me.
6. Desmond Got Screwed Over: While I understand that Desmond's story was ending; the way they sent him off left no real resolution for him and it seemed as if they were just tired of him. Desmond needed a proper send off with some actual closure; not an ending that screamed, 'Hey, we're kind of bored and tired of this guy, so we're getting rid of him okay? 'Kay, see ya!'
Those were the big things that really disappointed me and made me nuts. My thinking was I couldn't believe they spent three years working on this game and this is what we got. I loved the previous Assassin's Creed games and I was genuinely excited for this one, but there were many things that disappointed me. While I liked the game and I did like the ending (not the thing that happened to Desmond because that was some bullshit), I didn't love it. It felt like perhaps they rushed a bit or just didn't test things out fully to make sure they worked right (I'm looking at you, lock picking controls team) or they couldn't be bothered. I'm not expecting perfection, but after working on something for three years, you better be able to deliver the goods. This is just my take on it, if you want to try it out by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect stellar, because that is not going to happen. Expect kind of good, but not great, and fun to play through once.
Now, let us get to the parts that I found mildly disappointing and the parts that were so infuriating they got A LOT of swearing from me.
1.Connor Is A Wooden Boy: Connor while an interesting character, came across as wooden and I wasn't really feeling the passion from him or any emotion really. Even when he was supposed to be angry, it just came across as angst filled teenager. Shouldn't he be angrier about some of the things that have happened? I mean I know I would be full on raging if half the stuff he survives in this game happened to me. Speaking in a flat monotone in every situation is just not working for me. I also wish they had done a bit more with the story about Connor's tribe because it seemed like they were just a blip of a plot point and not much else which was a little disappointing. There's also this sense of Connor just being along for the ride and even as a full fledged assassin he doesn't really get to shine, so his story seems lost and smacks of missed opportunity. Bottom line, the pacing is off and that's never good when your main character doesn't feel like he's the main character to you.
2. The damned lock picking: Really, how hard is it to have decent controls for lock picking the chests you find in the game? I suggest that all those game developers go play all the Thief games so they can see how it's done. There is no excuse that late in the game for shoddy controls. Hold both buttons down, swirl around to find the correct "signal" and realize that you have the skills of a drunken monkey when you can't get the damn thing open. Also file under "the right signal my effing ass" because it was ridiculous.
3. Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Mission: Yes, they did their research and yes, it was cool they had that in the game. However, never have I wanted so badly to shove a historical person off a horse. Having to constantly ask the man for directions while he yelled at me, "More to the left! No, more right!" made me seriously consider handing him over to the enemy. It was only for a minute, I swear.
4. THE DAMN NAVAL BATTLES: There is a good reason why that is in all caps. There is no real learning curve here. It's pretty much a learn or sink your ship situation here. While I get that the ships can't turn on a dime just like real ships from that era; the controls are pardon my French, utter shit. Not only are they clunky, there are some questionable load times for firing the various cannons and lord help you if you end up getting turned around and smashing on some rocks. One of the naval battles was so damn infuriating, my husband Ron had to step in and finish it for me. Yes, it was that bad.
5. The Chasing Lee Mission: This was the final mission in Connor's main story and it made me want to tear my hair out and scream out my frustration. I did scream in fact. Many times. First there's the optional objectives of don't shove anyone while you're running, followed by don't let any of the British soldiers touch you. So instead of oh I don't know getting to shoot murdering bad guy in the face, you have to run an obstacle course full of people, things, and a burning ship like you're an Olympic marathon champ. Then we factor in, how Lee is only five steps away from you but you get the desynchronization message if you don't get closer to him. At one point I was standing right IN FRONT of him in the burning ship; I could have had him right there, but because it wasn't part of the "story" he took off running and I got that message. I finally did finish that mission and the payoff for it wasn't really worth it; trust me.
6. Desmond Got Screwed Over: While I understand that Desmond's story was ending; the way they sent him off left no real resolution for him and it seemed as if they were just tired of him. Desmond needed a proper send off with some actual closure; not an ending that screamed, 'Hey, we're kind of bored and tired of this guy, so we're getting rid of him okay? 'Kay, see ya!'
Those were the big things that really disappointed me and made me nuts. My thinking was I couldn't believe they spent three years working on this game and this is what we got. I loved the previous Assassin's Creed games and I was genuinely excited for this one, but there were many things that disappointed me. While I liked the game and I did like the ending (not the thing that happened to Desmond because that was some bullshit), I didn't love it. It felt like perhaps they rushed a bit or just didn't test things out fully to make sure they worked right (I'm looking at you, lock picking controls team) or they couldn't be bothered. I'm not expecting perfection, but after working on something for three years, you better be able to deliver the goods. This is just my take on it, if you want to try it out by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect stellar, because that is not going to happen. Expect kind of good, but not great, and fun to play through once.
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated Take My Hand (Take My Hand, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
This is my first experience with a book by Nicola Haken. The synopsis sounded promising and I have been looking for a new series to read, so I thought I would give this one a go.
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
This story is of two people trying to start their lives over after terrible events that occurred in each of their lives. They get thrown together and together they learn how to love...again.
The story is primarily set in London, so that's amazing! I'm obsessed with London and all things British, so I was SOOOOO excited for this book. I wanted to fall in LOVE with this book, and these characters, but at best I only fell in LIKE with this book. Sigh.
Dexter and Emily are great characters. They have the tormented past, the rocky relationship, and undying love for one another. Okay so it sounds like this book has everything a book needs. But still... I just couldn't fall in love, and let me tell you why.
1) Dexter is from the U.S.A. so when he moves to London, he clearly doesn't understand all of the lingo and slang that the English use. Which is fine. Emily used a lot of these slang words, "ginger minger" being an example of one, and so the narrator would pause and explain what each one meant. This was very helpful throughout the story. However, this is the part that bothers me. Throughout the story when Dex would have a chapter and be talking sometimes I would get confused and he started to sound like Emily to me. I felt like the two were blending together.
2) There were several times throughout this book I wanted to literally reach into my kindle and slap Emily. I understand she's never really been in a relationship before, and I understand she's socially awkward, but my god! It's like this girl is from another planet and she doesn't understand human interactions, AT ALL! She blushes at everything - even when it's not sexual, she doesn't know how to talk to people, and she doesn't know how to be in a relationship. If the guy is a alcoholic and throws stuff at the wall, and runs out on you every time he's scared. You drop him and run. It just didn't seem realistic at all.
He drank and ran out on her when she was in a strange country with a strange woman she'd never met, and he was just like, peace out. Then she had the nerve to feel sorry. He kept secrets from her and she had the nerve to scold herself for feeling that way. It just didn't feel real to me. I felt like she gave in to him too easily. Now, before you all comment like crazy about how I don't understand alcoholics and how I don't know how they operate and how I don't understand addiction, let me just tell you this... You're wrong. I understand, and I understand better than some. I was a teenage alcoholic. It ruined my life and it took me YEARS to get it back together. SO I GET IT.
3) Now that all that's out of the way on to the next. I didn't like that Emily was so clearly afraid to say SEX or PENIS, or VAGINA. If you can't say it or talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it. She really needed to grow up. I understand that some people just don't feel comfortable talking about it, but at some point you need to draw a line. Emily was just a little too chaste for my preference and I think the description of the sex scenes from Emily's perspective were out of place for this very reason. The chapters where she was the narrator, she shouldn't have been comfortable describing what was going down. I feel like the scene should have been set up and then a fade to black would have been more appropriate.
4) Lastly, Rachel... UHHHH MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER EVER!! At first I thought she was badass! Here you have this girl who has lived her life in a wheelchair and has had to compensate for it by being independent, coloring her hair funky colors, and getting tattoos. Awesome! Right... WRONG. She then opened her mouth. OMG! She's not independent and trying to stand out, she's just down right offensive, and she didn't seem to fit at all in this story.
I know by now you're probably thinking "Why did you give this book three stars if you clearly hated it." Right? Well, I didn't hate it, at all. I liked it, it evoked emotion, it made me think and it made me feel. Those things are SOOO important when writing a book. This author has some definite promise, and I know there are a couple more books in this series. I will probably read them since this book ended on a cliffhanger (which was awesome, btw). I want to know what happens to these characters, and I'm hoping they both grow up a bit in the upcoming books.
My one last thing I'd like to point out is the editing. Now, I don't know if I got a pre-edited copy or if I got the final draft. So, I'm not considering the editing in my rating, because I can't be certain. I do feel that this book needs some serious proofreading, but again it may not be that way in a purchased copy so again don't hold that minor detail against the author, because no one is perfect.
I will definitely read other books by this author. She has a great writing style, her story flows very nicely, there aren't any dull moments, and her story is one that tears at the heartstrings. I in no way mean this review to sound as if I'm attacking her, when in fact its the complete opposite. I commend her for writing this book, and I think she did it well. Plus, the most important thing EVER, her writing made me think and feel which is what good writing should do. So, I implore you to give this book a chance don't let my feelings and observations deter you from reading a book with great potential that you may absolutely love!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?