Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Way You Make Me Feel in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
I <em>loved</em> Maurene Goo's previous novel, <em>I Believe In A Thing Called Love</em>, so when I got an email from Netgalley, I jumped at the chance to read Goo's latest novel because I knew I wouldn't be disappointed with a cute contemporary novel. (I also jumped at the chance to be on the blog tour, because oh my goodness, cute books will be shoved at the world. #sorrynotsorry)
<em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> does <em>not</em> disappoint in levels of cuteness. Goo's latest novel follows Clara, who is introduced as the class clown, committing pranks and causing mischief since early on in her high school career. She especially likes making life difficult for her classmate Rose, the person she got her in trouble in the first place. Clara takes her pranks too far one day and it results in an entire summer stuck with Rose.
Clara is an... interesting character. She was a little hard to like at first, but over the course of the novel, Clara grew on me. She is sassy, carefree and gets in trouble... A LOT. She's also a little rebellious.
I think my favorite part, however, is the <em>food</em>. Food is an important part of the story, and I think my mouth watered while reading the book. Clara's dad owns a food truck called KoBra, which takes Korean and Brazillian cuisine. Both Clara and Rose work the food truck during the summer, where they are forced to get along with each other. they eventually develop a friendship, and I enjoyed seeing them grow from enemies to friends. (This is probably when I started liking Clara a <em>lot</em> as a character. Maybe it's just me and my opinions.)
The side characters of <em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> are my favorite characters - I love Hamlet (this is a wonderful name as much as the play is wonderful) and his grandparents, who are adorable and cute and funny, as much as I grew to love Clara, Rose and the rest of the characters.
If you're looking for a cute contemporary read that is bound to make you hungry, <em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> is the perfect novel.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-the-way-you-make-me-feel-by-maurene-goo-arc-review-playlist/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I <em>loved</em> Maurene Goo's previous novel, <em>I Believe In A Thing Called Love</em>, so when I got an email from Netgalley, I jumped at the chance to read Goo's latest novel because I knew I wouldn't be disappointed with a cute contemporary novel. (I also jumped at the chance to be on the blog tour, because oh my goodness, cute books will be shoved at the world. #sorrynotsorry)
<em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> does <em>not</em> disappoint in levels of cuteness. Goo's latest novel follows Clara, who is introduced as the class clown, committing pranks and causing mischief since early on in her high school career. She especially likes making life difficult for her classmate Rose, the person she got her in trouble in the first place. Clara takes her pranks too far one day and it results in an entire summer stuck with Rose.
Clara is an... interesting character. She was a little hard to like at first, but over the course of the novel, Clara grew on me. She is sassy, carefree and gets in trouble... A LOT. She's also a little rebellious.
I think my favorite part, however, is the <em>food</em>. Food is an important part of the story, and I think my mouth watered while reading the book. Clara's dad owns a food truck called KoBra, which takes Korean and Brazillian cuisine. Both Clara and Rose work the food truck during the summer, where they are forced to get along with each other. they eventually develop a friendship, and I enjoyed seeing them grow from enemies to friends. (This is probably when I started liking Clara a <em>lot</em> as a character. Maybe it's just me and my opinions.)
The side characters of <em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> are my favorite characters - I love Hamlet (this is a wonderful name as much as the play is wonderful) and his grandparents, who are adorable and cute and funny, as much as I grew to love Clara, Rose and the rest of the characters.
If you're looking for a cute contemporary read that is bound to make you hungry, <em>The Way You Make Me Feel</em> is the perfect novel.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-the-way-you-make-me-feel-by-maurene-goo-arc-review-playlist/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
SweetSelfie Pro-Motion sticker
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Take a fun selfie with live motion stickers and face effects now！ Sweet Selfie Pro - Selfie...
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated American Horror Story - Season 4 in TV
Nov 18, 2019 (Updated Nov 18, 2019)
Season 4 of AHS, subtitled 'Freak Show' gets a bad wrap in my opinion.
It doesn't reach the lofty heights of the first two seasons, but there's plenty to love and it tries something new.
The bulk of the series revolves around Elsa Mars (Jessica Lange) and her group of travelling sideshow performers, all who have some sort of abnormality. As they arrive in 1951 Florida to set up shop and make a living amongst a world that fears and targets them, they are also being eyed up by Richard Spencer (Denis O'Hare), a shady businessman attempting to profit from their misfortune, and Dandy Mott (Finn Wittrock), who harbours an unhealthy obsession with the Freak Show, and in particular, conjoined twins Bette and Dot Tattler (Sarah Paulson).
All the while, a murderous and sinister clown called Twisty (John Carroll Lynch) is on the loose, causing the finger to be pointed at another Freak Show member, Jimmy Darling (Evan Peters).
All of these plot lines running at once actually run side by side pretty smoothly, making for an engaging narrative, with plenty of plot twists along the way.
The Twisty plot line is proper classic slasher horror, and is unfortunately tied up pretty quickly, but it makes way for a surprisingly touching story about family, and what it means to be different.
I found myself caring about almost everybody during Freak Show. It's very well written.
The cast are as usual, pretty great. As well as the cast members mentioned above, we have returning AHS in the likes of Kathy Bates, Francis Conroy, Emma Roberts, Angela Bassett, and Naomi Grossman, as well as some new blood in the form of Michael Chiklis, Erika Ervin, Mat Fraser, Wes Bentley, and Neil Patrick-Harris.
Sarah Paulson is the undisputed highlight during this season, playing two characters at once, with some fantastic effects work going on.
The only character I really struggled to get on board with here was Elsa, which is a shame as she's front and centre. No fault of the great Jessica Lange of course.
The season drags for a while in the mid section, but with so many likable characters, it's not a huge issue.
Freak Show is also the first season that has a concrete connection to other seasons in the AHS story, confirming finally that all the seasons take place in the same universe, which is incredibly exciting, and opens the door for a lot of possibilities.
The gore effects and horror elements continue to be a big plus for AHS, and as always, the anthology format keeps it feeling fresh. Another win for Ryan Murphy and co.
It doesn't reach the lofty heights of the first two seasons, but there's plenty to love and it tries something new.
The bulk of the series revolves around Elsa Mars (Jessica Lange) and her group of travelling sideshow performers, all who have some sort of abnormality. As they arrive in 1951 Florida to set up shop and make a living amongst a world that fears and targets them, they are also being eyed up by Richard Spencer (Denis O'Hare), a shady businessman attempting to profit from their misfortune, and Dandy Mott (Finn Wittrock), who harbours an unhealthy obsession with the Freak Show, and in particular, conjoined twins Bette and Dot Tattler (Sarah Paulson).
All the while, a murderous and sinister clown called Twisty (John Carroll Lynch) is on the loose, causing the finger to be pointed at another Freak Show member, Jimmy Darling (Evan Peters).
All of these plot lines running at once actually run side by side pretty smoothly, making for an engaging narrative, with plenty of plot twists along the way.
The Twisty plot line is proper classic slasher horror, and is unfortunately tied up pretty quickly, but it makes way for a surprisingly touching story about family, and what it means to be different.
I found myself caring about almost everybody during Freak Show. It's very well written.
The cast are as usual, pretty great. As well as the cast members mentioned above, we have returning AHS in the likes of Kathy Bates, Francis Conroy, Emma Roberts, Angela Bassett, and Naomi Grossman, as well as some new blood in the form of Michael Chiklis, Erika Ervin, Mat Fraser, Wes Bentley, and Neil Patrick-Harris.
Sarah Paulson is the undisputed highlight during this season, playing two characters at once, with some fantastic effects work going on.
The only character I really struggled to get on board with here was Elsa, which is a shame as she's front and centre. No fault of the great Jessica Lange of course.
The season drags for a while in the mid section, but with so many likable characters, it's not a huge issue.
Freak Show is also the first season that has a concrete connection to other seasons in the AHS story, confirming finally that all the seasons take place in the same universe, which is incredibly exciting, and opens the door for a lot of possibilities.
The gore effects and horror elements continue to be a big plus for AHS, and as always, the anthology format keeps it feeling fresh. Another win for Ryan Murphy and co.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated John Wick. Chapter 4 (2023) in Movies
Mar 26, 2023
More of the Same - which is a GOOD thing
Once a series gets to it’s 4th installment - and that installment is NOT a reboot or “prequel” - the audience for said series is pretty much settled in. There is a rabid group of movie-going watchers that are looking for the intimate details and Easter Eggs to further their immersion into this world while the rest of the movie going public has probably moved on and, just might, check it out on a whim.
Such is the case with JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 - the 4th installment of the Keanu Reeves led/Chad Stahelski Directed series that is long on style, action, intrigue and mythology while being low on logical plot-lines and…well…daylight.
But this won’t matter to the John Wick movie-goer. They are getting more of the same - cartoon violence professionally created by Stahelski and Reeves with plenty of bad guys battling (and losing) to Wick while the mysterious, underground society that Wick has run afoul of tries to take him down.
This insider intrigue will be enriching for the true John Wick fan but will be inconsequential for the casual movie-goer as these plot machinations are just an excuse to line Reeves up against seemingly insurmountable obstacle after seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
And what a journey it is. Starting with a tussle at the Osaka Continental (featuring veteran Martial Artists Hiroki Sanada and Donnie Yen) to a battle in Germany to the final in Paris, JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 is just one, long stylized fight sequence with both Stahelski (the Director and Fight Choreographer) and Reeves (as Wick) showing off their talents in new and interesting ways.
There are way too many fight sequences to mention, but there is one sequence in a building that is shot from on high (reminiscent of watching video game play) that is the most interesting/effective - but they all are a ton of fun.
Bill Skarsgard (Pennywise the Clown in the IT movies) is along as the Marquis (cool name) who is in charge of bringing Wick down. He is joined by the always good Clancy Brown (the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob) on the “bad guy” side while Wick regulars Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and the late, great Lance Reddick line up on Wick’s side.
It is a fun roller-coaster ride - if a bit long at almost 3 hours (the middle sags a bit) - that will entertain casual fans of action flicks while satisfying the hard-core “Wick-aphiles” (if that is a term) with a further peeling back of a layer of this world.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 - the 4th installment of the Keanu Reeves led/Chad Stahelski Directed series that is long on style, action, intrigue and mythology while being low on logical plot-lines and…well…daylight.
But this won’t matter to the John Wick movie-goer. They are getting more of the same - cartoon violence professionally created by Stahelski and Reeves with plenty of bad guys battling (and losing) to Wick while the mysterious, underground society that Wick has run afoul of tries to take him down.
This insider intrigue will be enriching for the true John Wick fan but will be inconsequential for the casual movie-goer as these plot machinations are just an excuse to line Reeves up against seemingly insurmountable obstacle after seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
And what a journey it is. Starting with a tussle at the Osaka Continental (featuring veteran Martial Artists Hiroki Sanada and Donnie Yen) to a battle in Germany to the final in Paris, JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 is just one, long stylized fight sequence with both Stahelski (the Director and Fight Choreographer) and Reeves (as Wick) showing off their talents in new and interesting ways.
There are way too many fight sequences to mention, but there is one sequence in a building that is shot from on high (reminiscent of watching video game play) that is the most interesting/effective - but they all are a ton of fun.
Bill Skarsgard (Pennywise the Clown in the IT movies) is along as the Marquis (cool name) who is in charge of bringing Wick down. He is joined by the always good Clancy Brown (the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob) on the “bad guy” side while Wick regulars Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and the late, great Lance Reddick line up on Wick’s side.
It is a fun roller-coaster ride - if a bit long at almost 3 hours (the middle sags a bit) - that will entertain casual fans of action flicks while satisfying the hard-core “Wick-aphiles” (if that is a term) with a further peeling back of a layer of this world.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dana (24 KP) rated Twelfth Night: Texts and Contexts in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I am actually giving this play a 3.5 star review, not a 4 star review. This is the third or fourth time I have had to read this play; the second time for college alone. Oh, and this review may have spoilers to the plot of this play, so if by some chance you haven't read it yet and do not want to know any of the plot points, read at your own risk.
I used to absolutely love this play. It used to be one of my favorite Shakespearean comedies, but I think I've had to study it so many times that I'm getting tired of it.
The class that I am reading it for, my Approaches to Shakespeare class, is really fun. I feel like I am going to start liking the book more the more I study it in this class because we are not just reading it for plot. The first day we were studying it, we went line by line for the first scene and talked about the various possible meanings each word could have meant and that was so much fun to me!
Also, I love the title: Twelfth Night: Or What You Will. It makes Shakespeare seem like he's saying, "Twelfth Night: Or Whatever." I don't know why, but that cracks me up.
I love looking at a text in a new way, and this class is definitely doing that. We are looking at dress and identity, sexuality and identity, the nature of love, setting the scene, the problem of Malvolio, and clown and comedy in the next few weeks that we are studying the play. I think my favorite parts to study are going to be the dress and identity and the problem of Malvolio.
Dress and identity are main aspects of the play. I mean, the entire think is about mistaken identities and disguises, so of course that would be heavily shown throughout the play. But even with this, we are going to look at connections within the characters to see if there are even more layers to this.
The problem of Malvolio is also very important. He is the loose cannon of this play because he does not necessarily fit with the comedic structure. Most of the time in comedies, everything is wrapped up and everyone is happy, but not in this comedy. In this, he seeks revenge on those who messed with him, but why did Shakespeare go so dark with this ending? Especially since he did not do this for the other comedies. That is what I can't wait to find out in my class.
I may do an update after we finish studying this book just in case I get an answer for that question, but that will only be seen in the future.
Overall, this play will always have a place in my heart, but I need to see if time will let it come back to the higher spot it used to have before.
I used to absolutely love this play. It used to be one of my favorite Shakespearean comedies, but I think I've had to study it so many times that I'm getting tired of it.
The class that I am reading it for, my Approaches to Shakespeare class, is really fun. I feel like I am going to start liking the book more the more I study it in this class because we are not just reading it for plot. The first day we were studying it, we went line by line for the first scene and talked about the various possible meanings each word could have meant and that was so much fun to me!
Also, I love the title: Twelfth Night: Or What You Will. It makes Shakespeare seem like he's saying, "Twelfth Night: Or Whatever." I don't know why, but that cracks me up.
I love looking at a text in a new way, and this class is definitely doing that. We are looking at dress and identity, sexuality and identity, the nature of love, setting the scene, the problem of Malvolio, and clown and comedy in the next few weeks that we are studying the play. I think my favorite parts to study are going to be the dress and identity and the problem of Malvolio.
Dress and identity are main aspects of the play. I mean, the entire think is about mistaken identities and disguises, so of course that would be heavily shown throughout the play. But even with this, we are going to look at connections within the characters to see if there are even more layers to this.
The problem of Malvolio is also very important. He is the loose cannon of this play because he does not necessarily fit with the comedic structure. Most of the time in comedies, everything is wrapped up and everyone is happy, but not in this comedy. In this, he seeks revenge on those who messed with him, but why did Shakespeare go so dark with this ending? Especially since he did not do this for the other comedies. That is what I can't wait to find out in my class.
I may do an update after we finish studying this book just in case I get an answer for that question, but that will only be seen in the future.
Overall, this play will always have a place in my heart, but I need to see if time will let it come back to the higher spot it used to have before.
50 Museums to Blow Your Mind
Lonely Planet and Ben Handicott
Book
Thank the stars for the world's eccentric collectors; hoarders of objects beautiful, strange or...
Sheep Frenzy 2
Games
App
Have you ever wondered if there’s an alternate universe where animals rule the world. What if…...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
1972: Billie Jean King (played brilliantly by Emma Stone) just became the Grand Slam Champion of the Women’s Tennis Association. She had challenged the inequity of pay between the Men’s and Women’s Tennis Tour. Once she learns that the tournament for the Lawn Tennis Association is paying Women one eighth of the Men’s purse. She goes up against Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman at his misogynistic best). Billie, with her Manager, Gladys Heldman (Sarah Silverman in spectacular form echoing a more subdued version of Bobbie Fleckman) leave the LTA and start their own Women’s Tour. Which became the Virginia Slims tournament.
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis