Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Crazier Eights: Olympus in Tabletop Games
Feb 25, 2020
War. Old Maid. Go Fish. Crazy Eights. These are classic card games we probably all grew up playing. There have been many re-themes and new difficulty layers spread upon them to make them even more interesting. While UNO certainly has cornered the market on the Crazy Eights base, we have a new contender: Crazier Eights. Recoculous has published several versions of this card game with different themes: Camelot, Avalon, One Thousand & One Nights, and Shahrzad. Today we are taking a preview of Crazier Eights: Olympus.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Olympus (which I will from here call C8O) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase it through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8O strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of Olympus! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. Again, as I do not know if these components will be altered at all, I will comment on what we were provided. The cards are fine. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Grecian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the first Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it. The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights. However, now having played this several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in ancient Greek-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider backing this one or purchasing one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
You HAVE played Crazy Eights right? The card game where you attempt to be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but you can only play down if you can match the suit or number on top of the discard pile? And if you can’t, you throw down an 8 as a wild and call the color to be played next? Well there you have the easy rules. Crazier Eights: Olympus (which I will from here call C8O) holds basically the same rule-set with a few new mechanics and a theme. The win condition is still the same: be the first to exhaust your hand of cards, but to win you will need to play your hand strategically against your opponents.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or purchase it through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the large deck of cards and place the deck in the middle of the table. Flip the top card to begin the discard pile and dictate the first card play. Deal each player seven cards and you are ready to begin!
The turn structure is familiar: check for any “start of turn” effects and apply them, draw a card, play and/or discard a card, then resolve any “end of turn” effects. The deck is comprised of Events and Assets in different colors (suits) and numbers like in a typical deck of playing cards. After checking and resolving start of turn effects on Asset cards in your personal tableau, you must draw a card from the deck. This is where C8O strays from OG Crazy Eights a bit. You may play a card from your hand (Assets and Events) and discard a card to the discard pile (matching the suit/number/or an Eight), or simply play a card from your hand without discarding. Cards played from your hand can be Event cards that are played, resolved, and then discarded to the bottom of the discard pile, or an Asset card that is played to your tableau that cause chain reactions or other abilities on future turns. Next, resolve any end of turn effects from Assets in your tableau before the next player begins their turn.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has rid themselves of their hand and is crowned the Master of Olympus! Or at least, the winner of the game.
Components. This game is a box full of cards. Again, as I do not know if these components will be altered at all, I will comment on what we were provided. The cards are fine. The layout makes sense, and the art on the faces of the cards remind me of very classic art depicting ancient Grecian scenes. I am no art historian, so I do not know if they are existing art pieces or new ones crafted for this game, but either way, they are a joy to behold… if you can spend the time appreciating the art instead of tracking what cards you need to play and what effects you can chain together (that was me). Extra points to the Recoculous team for associating symbols with the different suit colors for our colorblind friends. This is something that unfortunately goes unaddressed far too often.
This implementation is the first Crazier Eights we have had the chance to try, and I can say that we really enjoyed our plays of it. The game comes with many interesting and varied effects to craft an ingenious strategy, and the art is stellar. Beware of playing with AP-prone gamers, as there is a lot going on and it is more than just a skinned Crazy Eights. However, now having played this several times, I can say that it is my favorite Crazy Eights derivative and certainly worthy of a look. If your game collection is sorely lacking in ancient Greek-themed card games, or if you want a hybrid game of old school rules with interesting twists, then do consider backing this one or purchasing one of its predecessors.
PS – Don’t worry if, while you are playing, you have all your Assets stolen or destroyed. I have won the game with zero Assets in front of me while opponents have had eight, ironically. Assets are great, but you still need to shed your hand.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jun 10, 2020 (Updated Jun 10, 2020)
Combat Is Fluid, Weighty And Satisfying. (2 more)
The Protagonists Are Well Thought Out.
I Can't Wait For The Next Part.
Side missions Are Tedious And Boring (2 more)
The Middle Is A Slog To Go Through,
Parts Of The Story Needed Removing
A Classic Reborn.
I understand the impact FFVII has had on both video game narratives, and storytelling itself. It remains a staple mark on video games, and as such is held so highly amongst developers as the standard of how great a narrative can be, and its hard to argue. I haven't even played the original 1997 release, but I know the story beats and main moments. Its an incredible journey, with fascinating characters, rolled into moments of twists and turns. Once a remake was announced, it obviously was met with massive anticipation, and worrying doubt. Could you possibly pull off a remake of classic and make fans old and new fall in love all over again?
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Jekel Loves Hyde in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Jekel Loves Hyde by Beth Fantaskey
Genre: Young Adult
ISBN:9780152063900
Rating: 4
Using their last names –and a mysterious box of notes in her dad's office—to their advantage, Jill Jekel and Tristen Hyde attempt to recreate the formula from the classic novel for a science competition. Tristen is becoming lost inside his other half, and knows that the formula is the only way to save himself… and Jill, since the beast wants to kill her. We've all heard about the kiss that alters your soul, but when Jill accidently consumes a little bit of a formula, things… change.
I read this book in one sitting. Even for a bookaholic like myself, I generally don't have that much patience.
There were a few things about Jekel Loves Hyde that really stuck out for me: One of them was happy-land syndrome. If you've never heard me refer to it before, it's where everything works out just perfect for the character's advantage, nobody argues, and everyone forgives each other. Jekel Loves Hyde did not have happy-land syndrome. The relationship was a rollercoaster, the plot was very complex, and things didn't always work out ideally. It made the story realistic and believable. I think if everything had worked out ideally it would have been to ridiculous to read.
Another thing was the plot. It was very twisted and complicated, and never ceased to surprise me. I had no idea what to expect from this book when I first started reading it, and that continued all through the book. From the very beginning, I knew the characters were keeping secrets from me, which compelled me to continue reading until 2 :00 AM (literally).
Some of the characters I thought I liked, but as the story went on I discovered what kind of people they really were, and I began to dislike them a lot. The main characters, Jill and Tristen, I liked. I can't say I "liked" their relationship though the story, because as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't always pretty. There were some pretty serious downfalls, but then again some pretty wonderful uprisings.
As far as the writing, it was decent but there were some fragments that were scattered throughout that were disappointing. Between the great plot, the characters, and the enjoyment, the mediocrity doesn't stand out too bad.
The end was great. It answered my questions, and gave a definite conclusion to their relationship—that I liked! Maybe it's the way I've been raised, but when the hero and the heroine's story ends with them only dating, I feel like the story can't be over. Ending with them engaged, her mother no longer off the deep end, and the "bad guy" gone forever, was pretty much perfect.
Content: sexual references, some language.
Recommendation: Ages 16+
Genre: Young Adult
ISBN:9780152063900
Rating: 4
Using their last names –and a mysterious box of notes in her dad's office—to their advantage, Jill Jekel and Tristen Hyde attempt to recreate the formula from the classic novel for a science competition. Tristen is becoming lost inside his other half, and knows that the formula is the only way to save himself… and Jill, since the beast wants to kill her. We've all heard about the kiss that alters your soul, but when Jill accidently consumes a little bit of a formula, things… change.
I read this book in one sitting. Even for a bookaholic like myself, I generally don't have that much patience.
There were a few things about Jekel Loves Hyde that really stuck out for me: One of them was happy-land syndrome. If you've never heard me refer to it before, it's where everything works out just perfect for the character's advantage, nobody argues, and everyone forgives each other. Jekel Loves Hyde did not have happy-land syndrome. The relationship was a rollercoaster, the plot was very complex, and things didn't always work out ideally. It made the story realistic and believable. I think if everything had worked out ideally it would have been to ridiculous to read.
Another thing was the plot. It was very twisted and complicated, and never ceased to surprise me. I had no idea what to expect from this book when I first started reading it, and that continued all through the book. From the very beginning, I knew the characters were keeping secrets from me, which compelled me to continue reading until 2 :00 AM (literally).
Some of the characters I thought I liked, but as the story went on I discovered what kind of people they really were, and I began to dislike them a lot. The main characters, Jill and Tristen, I liked. I can't say I "liked" their relationship though the story, because as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't always pretty. There were some pretty serious downfalls, but then again some pretty wonderful uprisings.
As far as the writing, it was decent but there were some fragments that were scattered throughout that were disappointing. Between the great plot, the characters, and the enjoyment, the mediocrity doesn't stand out too bad.
The end was great. It answered my questions, and gave a definite conclusion to their relationship—that I liked! Maybe it's the way I've been raised, but when the hero and the heroine's story ends with them only dating, I feel like the story can't be over. Ending with them engaged, her mother no longer off the deep end, and the "bad guy" gone forever, was pretty much perfect.
Content: sexual references, some language.
Recommendation: Ages 16+
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty (Sleeping Beauty, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Anne Rice wrote a trilogy of books under the pen name A. N. Roquelaure, based on the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty. These books were titled The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty, Beauty's Punishment (Sleeping Beauty), and Beauty's Release: The Conclusion of the Classic Erotic Trilogy of Sleeping Beauty. Yep, you read it right - erotica. The set is the only thing I have ever read by Anne Rice, and the only erotica books I have ever read. I have told maybe one or two other people that I have read the series, because it just does not match up with my "good girl" persona, and it resulted in the shocked expression I was expecting. Why would I read such an abomination? One part boredom, one part fairy tale superfan, and three parts secret naughty indulgence/curiousity (one for each book) - I found the books at a slow point while working at a bookstore, and sneakily read them at the customer service desk when I had nothing else to do.
In the first book, Beauty is awakened from her hundred-year sleep with a deflowering by the Prince. He takes her to his kingdom, where she is trained as a sexual slave and plaything, but she fails to be obedient, so is sent to brutal slavery in the neighboring village. In the second book, she is sold at auction and a power struggle ensues as she refuses to be completely broken by her various punishments. Actual plotline wanes in this one until towards the end some of the psychological aspects of sexual slavery are explored before Beauty is kidnapped for a Sultan. In the third book, the various characters all reach closure in varying forms as the sexual aspects of the plot take on a more religious and philosophical tone, as opposed to the crudity of the European castle and village. By the end of the series, it felt more like I was reading a study of a lifestyle for the education and not so much for the indulgence.
The sexual scenes are extremely explicit and graphic with the theme of sado-masochism replete throughout the text, but amazingly, there is still a plotline and decent character development. The first book was my favorite of the three, simply because that is the only book of the three that actually uses the fairy tale in its plotline, and by the third book much of the sex seemed vaguely repetitive and did not affect me as intensely as it did in the beginning. I would even dare to recommend it to those who are of the appropriate age.
I likely have A. N. Roquelaure's influence to thank for my unquestioning devotion to the Kushiel's Legacy series by Jacqueline Carey, now that I think about it...
In the first book, Beauty is awakened from her hundred-year sleep with a deflowering by the Prince. He takes her to his kingdom, where she is trained as a sexual slave and plaything, but she fails to be obedient, so is sent to brutal slavery in the neighboring village. In the second book, she is sold at auction and a power struggle ensues as she refuses to be completely broken by her various punishments. Actual plotline wanes in this one until towards the end some of the psychological aspects of sexual slavery are explored before Beauty is kidnapped for a Sultan. In the third book, the various characters all reach closure in varying forms as the sexual aspects of the plot take on a more religious and philosophical tone, as opposed to the crudity of the European castle and village. By the end of the series, it felt more like I was reading a study of a lifestyle for the education and not so much for the indulgence.
The sexual scenes are extremely explicit and graphic with the theme of sado-masochism replete throughout the text, but amazingly, there is still a plotline and decent character development. The first book was my favorite of the three, simply because that is the only book of the three that actually uses the fairy tale in its plotline, and by the third book much of the sex seemed vaguely repetitive and did not affect me as intensely as it did in the beginning. I would even dare to recommend it to those who are of the appropriate age.
I likely have A. N. Roquelaure's influence to thank for my unquestioning devotion to the Kushiel's Legacy series by Jacqueline Carey, now that I think about it...
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Veiled Rose (Tales of Goldstone Wood, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I am always a fan of fairy re-tellings, even if it is for a fairy tale I am not actually familiar with, as that of Rose Red. It took me awhile, but I also gathered that the book is a kind of Christian allegory, and parts remind me of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Persuasion: A Latter-day Tale in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I said yes to reviewing this book because even though I have not yet read the Jane Austen classic that this book is based on, I was curious about the Mormon aspect of the book and how the author would modernize it. I know some about Mormon customs and traditions, but it was still interesting to read the book from the perspective of a practicing Mormon and see how this specific religious sect influenced the main character in her daily life.
I am sure other reviews will compare and contrast in detail this book with the original Persuasion, but I will write about this book from the perspective of someone who has not read Persuasion by Jane Austen, though I have read some of her other works and I am a fan.
The book as a whole was an enjoyable romantic read with a bit of suspense and drama thrown in to create conflict. While I was reading some of the situations, I did often wonder how Jane Austen would have written them were she still alive today, such as Lily's jellyfish sting or Anne's stalker. The use of modern technology, such as computers and cell phones, also contributed to the modernization quite obviously.
The characterization that Jamison employs closely resembles Austen's skill, with personality traits that translate across any era, such as the ones' whose main concern was about money and what it can buy. There were the females whose only concern was obtaining a husband, as well as the mother who had little regard for disciplining her children. Matchmakers also abounded and many of the characters were related - either by blood or marriage.
The Mormon influences are easy to pick out, such as Anne's avoidance of alcohol and caffeine, and sometimes these little changes did not blend well with the plot, likely because I did not always understand what the terminology referred to, such as references to a "Fireside." I believe the book would have benefited from more explanation of the Mormon practices woven into the background details.
Ironically, my favorite characters were not the main characters, Anne and Neil. I had more interest in the ones that seemed to have a smaller part, such as Jay, who lost his wife after only 8 months of marriage. Anne's character seemed to fall a bit flat, and even when she was supposed to be in a highly emotional state, such as when she gets angry at Will, I had a hard time believing it. I also would have liked more emotion from Neil, as he always seemed to be too cool and collected for the events that were unfolding.
I did enjoy the book, though, and any fan of Jane Austen would enjoy this modernized tale, as well.
I am sure other reviews will compare and contrast in detail this book with the original Persuasion, but I will write about this book from the perspective of someone who has not read Persuasion by Jane Austen, though I have read some of her other works and I am a fan.
The book as a whole was an enjoyable romantic read with a bit of suspense and drama thrown in to create conflict. While I was reading some of the situations, I did often wonder how Jane Austen would have written them were she still alive today, such as Lily's jellyfish sting or Anne's stalker. The use of modern technology, such as computers and cell phones, also contributed to the modernization quite obviously.
The characterization that Jamison employs closely resembles Austen's skill, with personality traits that translate across any era, such as the ones' whose main concern was about money and what it can buy. There were the females whose only concern was obtaining a husband, as well as the mother who had little regard for disciplining her children. Matchmakers also abounded and many of the characters were related - either by blood or marriage.
The Mormon influences are easy to pick out, such as Anne's avoidance of alcohol and caffeine, and sometimes these little changes did not blend well with the plot, likely because I did not always understand what the terminology referred to, such as references to a "Fireside." I believe the book would have benefited from more explanation of the Mormon practices woven into the background details.
Ironically, my favorite characters were not the main characters, Anne and Neil. I had more interest in the ones that seemed to have a smaller part, such as Jay, who lost his wife after only 8 months of marriage. Anne's character seemed to fall a bit flat, and even when she was supposed to be in a highly emotional state, such as when she gets angry at Will, I had a hard time believing it. I also would have liked more emotion from Neil, as he always seemed to be too cool and collected for the events that were unfolding.
I did enjoy the book, though, and any fan of Jane Austen would enjoy this modernized tale, as well.