Search
Search results
Olivia (102 KP) rated Under Rose-Tainted Skies in Books
Mar 27, 2019
If you want an accurate representation of what it's like to live with mental health issues, read this book. Please.
Going into this book I was worried about two things:
1. Is this a story of a boy magically curing a girl?
2. Will the representation of mental illness be good/accurate/consistent, or will it just show up every couple of chapters to move the story along?
Rest assured, it is neither of those negative things.
The struggles of mental illness are on every single page. And they aren't underplayed. They aren't made to be cute and quirky. Norah bites her hand, scratches until she bleeds, curls up into herself, has horrible panic attacks and so much more. I cannot express how important it is for these things to be shown. They aren't exactly fun or easy to read, but neither is experiencing those things first hand.
It's so important to see this type of representation in media, it doesn't make everything better, but it helps make a person feel less alone, so a huge thank you to Louise Gornall for sharing her experiences and her brain-child with the world.
The relationship was so sweet, what a great fella that Luke is. He doesn't magically cure her, he doesn't pull her out of her house and take her to a crowded venue to experience what life is. He is understanding, and when he doesn't understand he puts the effort in to fix that. He's just such a great guy and I want me someone like that in my life. Someone who won't push, but who won't let you burrow into yourself either.
Whilst being a quick read, it was far from being an easy read. As someone with mental health problems, I related heavily to many of the moments in the books, and that was difficult. It makes you view the way you think and behave from a different perspective. When I'm doing or saying or thinking something self-destructive, I feel like I deserve it. But seeing someone else go through maybe not the same, but similar things... it really makes you look at yourself and forces you to reevaluate your actions. It's not a cure, but it makes you think, and sometimes that's a much-needed thing.
There is a self-harm scene that's difficult to read, not because Gornall makes it this bloody disgusting mess, but because she takes you through the thought process. Before it happens, while it's happening, immediately after it happens and then a minute or so after. It's rough to read, but again, very important for it to be represented in a way like that. I've never read another book that deals with self-harm like that. Even more so, the book goes into how self-harming takes many forms, it's not just cutting. It's digging nails until your flesh breaks, not eating, peeling back your cuticles. Again, it's a lot.
As heavy as this book can be, it's also one that'll make you smile. Not just for the witty lines such as:
"Beyond the fire and brimstone, everyone has their own idea of hell. Shopping, doing Common Core math, fish-nibbling-at-your-feet spa treatments, or having to spend an eternity surrounded by people who click pens"
And
"It means we take all our clothes off, and he turns into a koala, clinging to me like a tree while we watch TV."
As much as I love seeing someone bash Common Core and make sex jokes with their mom, that's not the only reason why I was smiling throughout this book. It was impossible to not feel a connection towards Norah. She is just a character that you will find yourself constantly rooting for. With every small achievement she made, I couldn't help but smile. It was like watching your best friend stress and worry about something for weeks just to see them finally do the thing and see how okay they are, how happy they are. That's how this book made me feel towards Norah. That odd sense of pride.
Really the only thing that bothered me from time to time was that the authors British showed, such as the way characters would speak or the words used that aren't commonly used in America, as the story takes place in California. Also, the pacing was a bit weird to me, but not so much so that I couldn't enjoy the book.
Seriously, if you want a book that deals with mental health in an accurate way, read this. Of course, everyone experiences things differently and all that, but this is seriously one of the most realistic portrayals in YA that I've read.
Going into this book I was worried about two things:
1. Is this a story of a boy magically curing a girl?
2. Will the representation of mental illness be good/accurate/consistent, or will it just show up every couple of chapters to move the story along?
Rest assured, it is neither of those negative things.
The struggles of mental illness are on every single page. And they aren't underplayed. They aren't made to be cute and quirky. Norah bites her hand, scratches until she bleeds, curls up into herself, has horrible panic attacks and so much more. I cannot express how important it is for these things to be shown. They aren't exactly fun or easy to read, but neither is experiencing those things first hand.
It's so important to see this type of representation in media, it doesn't make everything better, but it helps make a person feel less alone, so a huge thank you to Louise Gornall for sharing her experiences and her brain-child with the world.
The relationship was so sweet, what a great fella that Luke is. He doesn't magically cure her, he doesn't pull her out of her house and take her to a crowded venue to experience what life is. He is understanding, and when he doesn't understand he puts the effort in to fix that. He's just such a great guy and I want me someone like that in my life. Someone who won't push, but who won't let you burrow into yourself either.
Whilst being a quick read, it was far from being an easy read. As someone with mental health problems, I related heavily to many of the moments in the books, and that was difficult. It makes you view the way you think and behave from a different perspective. When I'm doing or saying or thinking something self-destructive, I feel like I deserve it. But seeing someone else go through maybe not the same, but similar things... it really makes you look at yourself and forces you to reevaluate your actions. It's not a cure, but it makes you think, and sometimes that's a much-needed thing.
There is a self-harm scene that's difficult to read, not because Gornall makes it this bloody disgusting mess, but because she takes you through the thought process. Before it happens, while it's happening, immediately after it happens and then a minute or so after. It's rough to read, but again, very important for it to be represented in a way like that. I've never read another book that deals with self-harm like that. Even more so, the book goes into how self-harming takes many forms, it's not just cutting. It's digging nails until your flesh breaks, not eating, peeling back your cuticles. Again, it's a lot.
As heavy as this book can be, it's also one that'll make you smile. Not just for the witty lines such as:
"Beyond the fire and brimstone, everyone has their own idea of hell. Shopping, doing Common Core math, fish-nibbling-at-your-feet spa treatments, or having to spend an eternity surrounded by people who click pens"
And
"It means we take all our clothes off, and he turns into a koala, clinging to me like a tree while we watch TV."
As much as I love seeing someone bash Common Core and make sex jokes with their mom, that's not the only reason why I was smiling throughout this book. It was impossible to not feel a connection towards Norah. She is just a character that you will find yourself constantly rooting for. With every small achievement she made, I couldn't help but smile. It was like watching your best friend stress and worry about something for weeks just to see them finally do the thing and see how okay they are, how happy they are. That's how this book made me feel towards Norah. That odd sense of pride.
Really the only thing that bothered me from time to time was that the authors British showed, such as the way characters would speak or the words used that aren't commonly used in America, as the story takes place in California. Also, the pacing was a bit weird to me, but not so much so that I couldn't enjoy the book.
Seriously, if you want a book that deals with mental health in an accurate way, read this. Of course, everyone experiences things differently and all that, but this is seriously one of the most realistic portrayals in YA that I've read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Red Dawn (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Back in 1984 in the late stages of the Cold War, the movie named “Red Dawn” was released. It starred several young actors and actresses who went on to a variety of success including Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Jennifer Grey, and Lea Thompson. The film follows a group of high school students who fight to defend their town, families, and country after an invasion of Soviet and Cuban forces occupies mainland America.
Despite being delayed for nearly 3 years due to financial issues, the new version of “Red Dawn” has arrived and also features an impressive young cast of future stars. Chris Hemsworth has gone on to find fame as Thor while Josh Hutcherson has found fame playing Peeta in “The Hunger Games”. The fact that this movie was filmed before either of those actors appeared in their signature roles allows the studio to now benefit from the increased name recognition of the cast.
Instead of a California town, the new film is set in Spokane, Washington where thanks to news clip segments at the beginning of the film, we understand that the country is involved in numerous conflicts around the globe and some question whether or not we have enough forces to secure our borders. Enter Jed Eckert (Hemsworth), who’s just returned home on leave after serving combat duty in the Middle East. His younger brother Matt (Josh Peck), is a quarterback at the local high school team and he bears resentment toward his brother for leaving shortly after the death of their mother. Their father is a well-respected member of the force and does his best to ensure harmony between the brothers as well as their local community.
The brothers are literally shaken awake by an airborne assault as North Korea lands troops throughout their community. Unsure what is happening, Jed, Matt, and several of their friends managed to escape into the wilderness and devise a plan for survival. Further complicating matters is the fact that Matt’s girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), has been taken prisoner. Jed, with his military background quickly assumes control of the group, but Matt finds himself distracted from following orders and missions whenever he sees an opportunity to pursue Erica’s freedom.
The group calls itself “The Wolverines” after the local football team, and engages in a series of hit-and-run tactics against the invading forces. The plan is to make the occupation so costly that they will eventually give up. While they do have initial success, they soon realize that they are fighting against substantial odds not the least of which is their own internal conflicts and agendas as well as diminishing supplies.
When a recon group from the military under the command of Col. Andy Tanner (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), arrives and tells the Wolverines about a device that may hold the key to their victory. The two sides must team up in an all-out assault on enemy headquarters in an effort to save the day.
While the film has plenty of action, the leaps of logic and common sense it requires the audience to take are astronomical. I understand that for a film of this type you must suspend a lot of reality in order for it to work. I’m not supposed asked questions about the logistics of the enemy’s plan and their actions. Suffice it to say that I could think of at least a dozen factors that were not brought into play. While the enemy may indeed have the ability to shut down various electronics and defensive capabilities which enabled the invasion. That does not explain where the military outside of the combat zone is, why our allies and remaining military are not dropping bombs and nukes on North Korea in retaliation, and scores of other inconsistencies. It is essentially left to our imaginations as to why this is not happening and we’re just supposed to accept on blind faith that there’s a good reason for this even though the recon unit manages to infiltrate Spokane in a helicopter and makes mentions of Missouri to Arizona as being free of any enemy influence.
The best thing I can say about the film said if you are willing to overlook the abundance of plot holes and logic gaps, as well as some at times stiff acting and dialogue, there are some enjoyable action seems to be found. The young cast works well with one another and often gave a very energetic and physical performance.
If you are a fan of the original, you may enjoy this film from a nostalgia standpoint, otherwise leave your common sense behind, sit back and enjoy the ride.
Despite being delayed for nearly 3 years due to financial issues, the new version of “Red Dawn” has arrived and also features an impressive young cast of future stars. Chris Hemsworth has gone on to find fame as Thor while Josh Hutcherson has found fame playing Peeta in “The Hunger Games”. The fact that this movie was filmed before either of those actors appeared in their signature roles allows the studio to now benefit from the increased name recognition of the cast.
Instead of a California town, the new film is set in Spokane, Washington where thanks to news clip segments at the beginning of the film, we understand that the country is involved in numerous conflicts around the globe and some question whether or not we have enough forces to secure our borders. Enter Jed Eckert (Hemsworth), who’s just returned home on leave after serving combat duty in the Middle East. His younger brother Matt (Josh Peck), is a quarterback at the local high school team and he bears resentment toward his brother for leaving shortly after the death of their mother. Their father is a well-respected member of the force and does his best to ensure harmony between the brothers as well as their local community.
The brothers are literally shaken awake by an airborne assault as North Korea lands troops throughout their community. Unsure what is happening, Jed, Matt, and several of their friends managed to escape into the wilderness and devise a plan for survival. Further complicating matters is the fact that Matt’s girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), has been taken prisoner. Jed, with his military background quickly assumes control of the group, but Matt finds himself distracted from following orders and missions whenever he sees an opportunity to pursue Erica’s freedom.
The group calls itself “The Wolverines” after the local football team, and engages in a series of hit-and-run tactics against the invading forces. The plan is to make the occupation so costly that they will eventually give up. While they do have initial success, they soon realize that they are fighting against substantial odds not the least of which is their own internal conflicts and agendas as well as diminishing supplies.
When a recon group from the military under the command of Col. Andy Tanner (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), arrives and tells the Wolverines about a device that may hold the key to their victory. The two sides must team up in an all-out assault on enemy headquarters in an effort to save the day.
While the film has plenty of action, the leaps of logic and common sense it requires the audience to take are astronomical. I understand that for a film of this type you must suspend a lot of reality in order for it to work. I’m not supposed asked questions about the logistics of the enemy’s plan and their actions. Suffice it to say that I could think of at least a dozen factors that were not brought into play. While the enemy may indeed have the ability to shut down various electronics and defensive capabilities which enabled the invasion. That does not explain where the military outside of the combat zone is, why our allies and remaining military are not dropping bombs and nukes on North Korea in retaliation, and scores of other inconsistencies. It is essentially left to our imaginations as to why this is not happening and we’re just supposed to accept on blind faith that there’s a good reason for this even though the recon unit manages to infiltrate Spokane in a helicopter and makes mentions of Missouri to Arizona as being free of any enemy influence.
The best thing I can say about the film said if you are willing to overlook the abundance of plot holes and logic gaps, as well as some at times stiff acting and dialogue, there are some enjoyable action seems to be found. The young cast works well with one another and often gave a very energetic and physical performance.
If you are a fan of the original, you may enjoy this film from a nostalgia standpoint, otherwise leave your common sense behind, sit back and enjoy the ride.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Sequoia in Tabletop Games
Mar 17, 2021
Sequoias are some of the largest trees on Earth, growing hundreds of feet tall and living for thousands of years. A few summers ago I had the chance to visit northern California, and spent a day hiking in a forest full of redwoods and sequoias. The sheer size of the trees was breathtaking, and that hike remains high on my list of favorite vacation spots ever. So when I saw a small game based on those behemoth trees, I was instantly transported back to NorCal, and knew I had to give this game a shot!
Sequoia is a game of dice rolling and area majority in which players are trying to grow the largest trees across different forests. To setup the game, lay out the 11 forest cards on the table within reach of all players, and randomly assign a 1st and 2nd place token to each card. Each player receives 5 dice and 20 tree tokens in their chosen color. The game is ready to begin!
On each turn, players will simultaneously roll their 5 dice – keeping the results secret from all other players! After rolling, players will create 2 pairs using 4 of their dice (one will be left out). Everyone reveals their pairs at the same time, and will place a tree token on the card that matches each of their dice pairs. For example, my pairs might be a 5 and a 2, and a 6 and a 6, so I would put a tree token on the 7 and 12 forest cards. Play continues in this manner (rolling dice, creating pairs, and placing tree tokens), until players have placed all of their tokens. Once all tokens have been placed, the game moves to the scoring phase. For each forest card, the 1st and 2nd place tokens go to the players who have the most and 2nd most tree tokens on the forest card. Once all cards have been scored, count up final points, and the player with the most points wins!
I have to start off by saying that Sequoia really surprised me. I was expecting a fast, light game, and that’s what I got. But I also got a game with a fun amount of player interaction and strategy that keeps all players engaged. You may not know what forest cards a player will choose each turn, but you can see who has already played tree tokens to each card, which can help drive your strategy. Do you want to directly compete with everyone and really pile on the tokens to win 1st place on a card? Or do you want to spread your tokens around to as many forest cards as possible, and hopefully maximize points that are otherwise being ignored by opponents? Especially since the 1st and 2nd place tokens are randomly assigned and have differing values, you really don’t know which forests will yield the highest points until the end of the game. Sequoia is a Yahtzee-esque game that allows direct player interaction, and that elevates the overall gameplay for me.
Let’s talk about components for a minute. These components are great. The forest cards are a nice thick card stock. The tree tokens and 1st/2nd place tokens are all good chunky bits that will definitely hold up over time. And the dice are nice little d6’s that are easy to read and fun to manipulate. The color matching with the dice and tree tokens is also really nice, and I appreciate that uniformity for each player color. All in all, a high quality production for such a small game.
If you ask me, I think Sequoia is a perfect filler game. It is super fast to teach and play, the setup/cleanup takes literally seconds, and it provides an engaging and fun gameplay. Beyond being a filler game, it is a great small standalone game as well. Want something fast to play while the oven is pre-heating for dinner? Pull out Sequoia! I also love that it is simple enough for younger players to understand – it is a numbers game, but you can also visually see what your opponents are working towards, and that lends itself to a good amount of player interaction. Definitely a game that I can see getting a decent amount of table time in my group! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sky-rocketing 8 / 12. Check it out, you might be surprised!
Sequoia is a game of dice rolling and area majority in which players are trying to grow the largest trees across different forests. To setup the game, lay out the 11 forest cards on the table within reach of all players, and randomly assign a 1st and 2nd place token to each card. Each player receives 5 dice and 20 tree tokens in their chosen color. The game is ready to begin!
On each turn, players will simultaneously roll their 5 dice – keeping the results secret from all other players! After rolling, players will create 2 pairs using 4 of their dice (one will be left out). Everyone reveals their pairs at the same time, and will place a tree token on the card that matches each of their dice pairs. For example, my pairs might be a 5 and a 2, and a 6 and a 6, so I would put a tree token on the 7 and 12 forest cards. Play continues in this manner (rolling dice, creating pairs, and placing tree tokens), until players have placed all of their tokens. Once all tokens have been placed, the game moves to the scoring phase. For each forest card, the 1st and 2nd place tokens go to the players who have the most and 2nd most tree tokens on the forest card. Once all cards have been scored, count up final points, and the player with the most points wins!
I have to start off by saying that Sequoia really surprised me. I was expecting a fast, light game, and that’s what I got. But I also got a game with a fun amount of player interaction and strategy that keeps all players engaged. You may not know what forest cards a player will choose each turn, but you can see who has already played tree tokens to each card, which can help drive your strategy. Do you want to directly compete with everyone and really pile on the tokens to win 1st place on a card? Or do you want to spread your tokens around to as many forest cards as possible, and hopefully maximize points that are otherwise being ignored by opponents? Especially since the 1st and 2nd place tokens are randomly assigned and have differing values, you really don’t know which forests will yield the highest points until the end of the game. Sequoia is a Yahtzee-esque game that allows direct player interaction, and that elevates the overall gameplay for me.
Let’s talk about components for a minute. These components are great. The forest cards are a nice thick card stock. The tree tokens and 1st/2nd place tokens are all good chunky bits that will definitely hold up over time. And the dice are nice little d6’s that are easy to read and fun to manipulate. The color matching with the dice and tree tokens is also really nice, and I appreciate that uniformity for each player color. All in all, a high quality production for such a small game.
If you ask me, I think Sequoia is a perfect filler game. It is super fast to teach and play, the setup/cleanup takes literally seconds, and it provides an engaging and fun gameplay. Beyond being a filler game, it is a great small standalone game as well. Want something fast to play while the oven is pre-heating for dinner? Pull out Sequoia! I also love that it is simple enough for younger players to understand – it is a numbers game, but you can also visually see what your opponents are working towards, and that lends itself to a good amount of player interaction. Definitely a game that I can see getting a decent amount of table time in my group! Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sky-rocketing 8 / 12. Check it out, you might be surprised!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1 in Books
Apr 30, 2021
56 of 250
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories, so when I heard about this book through numerous blogs, I knew it was a book that I would have to read. Luckily, I wasn't disappointed.
Mary Shelley Black is a 16 year old girl who is sent to live in California with her aunt after her father gets arrested for helping men avoid the draft in 1918. She meets up with her childhood friend, and they fall in love with each other. Unfortunately, when they realize they're in love with each other, it's too late. He is being shipped off to war the next day. When she receives word that Stephen, her childhood friend and sweetheart, has died in battle, Mary Shelley is devasted. She's never believed in ghosts before, but when Stephen's ghost comes to here asking for help, she'll do whatever it takes to help him.
I found the title of this book to be very interesting. In fact, before I read the book, I was quite confused about how that title would fit in with a ghost story. After reading the book, I understood what it was all about.
The cover is rather interesting as well. I like the way there's pretty Mary Shelley Black sitting on a chair with what looks like a spirit beside her. The cover is what caught my attention in the first place. When I saw it, I knew I had to read it.
The world building in this book is quite good and believable. It's very obvious that Miss Winters has done her homework about life back in 1918. I'm not a history buff, but from what I was reading, everything seemed to be historically accurate. I even had to look up stuff myself that I never knew about such as people using onions to ward off the flu!! Personally, I think I would've been a bit more scared when it came to Stephen's ghostly visits to Mary Shelley though, but this may just be a me thing.
The pacing did start off a bit slow, and I was feeling disappointed as I had heard great things about this book. However, once I got about 100 pages in, the pacing picked right up, and I was hooked. I only put this book down because real life interfered with my reading. I could definitely tell why people were loving In the Shadow of Blackbirds!
The plot was fantastic and very interesting. I had never read a book dealing with the whole spiritualist movement of the early 20th century. I loved how the plot incorporated everything about that period of time such as the war and the flu. The spiritualism in the book portrayed how gullible and desperate people were back then with all their loved ones dying. I loved the fiction aspect of a girl whose first love dies despite all these other things going on. I loved how he returned as a ghost and the major twist in the story.
The characters were definitely thought out and well written. I loved how Mary Shelley was so passionate when it came to what she loved. I loved her vulnerability at times but how strong she was. I just loved how great of a character Mary Shelley was. I did find Stephen to be a bit annoying as a ghost though. I just thought he was too whiney, and at times, I wanted to exorcise him! I know it sounds mean, but boy, he was just so annoying! I understand that he was suffering but still. I just felt that he put a lot of pressure on Mary Shelley to save him considering how much he loved her! Julius made a great meanie! I hated him, and there were so many times I wish I could've yelled at him! He wasn't a poorly written character; he was quite the opposite actually! I did love Mary Shelley's Aunt Eva too. She came across a lot older than her 26 years, but I think I would've as well if I'd been through what she had. I loved the way she was willing to take Mary Shelley in, and I loved how she always made a fuss over her. Eva definitely had a big heart.
I found the dialogue to be most fascinating! I enjoyed reading about each character as well as reading about history. If only learning about history were this fun in school. I think I would've paid more attention! I loved reading about how Mary Shelley felt about everything. I loved the way people spoke back then as well. As for language, there are a few swear words, but nothing too major.
Overall, In the Shadow of Blackbirds by Cat Winters was a super interesting read!! The world building, plot and characters were all written fantastically, and I never even knew I was getting a history lesson in the process.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who are after an interesting read. I think mostly everyone would enjoy it.
In the Shadow of Blackbirds gets a 4.25 out of 5 from me.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)