Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated In Fabric (2018) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020
Verdict: Weird
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
Story: In Fabric starts as we meet divorced mother Sheila (Jean-Baptiste) who is seeing her son Vince (Ayeh) prepare for college with his muse Gwen (Christie) slowly taking over the house, Sheila is looking for love in the personal ads with her needing to by a brand-new dress.
Soon after wearing the dress for the first time, Sheila notices strange things happening around the house as the tensions between Shelia and Gwen continue to rise. Shelia’s life gets turned upside down, which only escalates the more she investigates the original model of the dress.
Thoughts on In Fabric
Characters – Sheila is a divorced single mother who works as a banker, she is trying to move on with her life, as her son is about to be moving on with his life, she is gets a new dress, which only starts to increase the troubles in her life. Gwen is the older woman dating Sheila’s teenage son, she is slowly taking over the house being very disturbing with the tension filled interaction with Sheila. Reg is on a stage-do which sees him get the dress to wear, he is preparing for his own wedding, starting to see his own life spiral out of control, with Babs being the wife-to-be that is still preparing the wedding.
Performances – Marianne Jean-Baptiste is great for her part of the film, this is mainly because the film is split into two stories with eh dress, Marianne has the first one and shows the struggles she would be experiencing. When it comes to the rest of the cast, it does feel too late into the movie to get truly invested in the second set of actors story.
Story – The story here follows two different people that come in contact with a mysterious dress that has its own abilities to ruin their lives, we are left to guess just what is causing the pain to happen and why this dress is acting the same way around people. This story is flat out weird to follow, mostly because we have two different stories that might well be connected, they are separate enough to leave us with different ideas for each family to deal with. The story doesn’t seem to give us enough answers about the dress itself and with on fleeting images of the store it came from, which only ends up leaving us feel like we could have had more from the story.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy in the film comes from just how outside the box the idea is, while the horror comes from seeing how the dress acts and what it causes to people’s lives.
Settings – The film tries to keep the locations down to everyday ones, be it the two homes, the store or the employment locations, it shows how the weird events of the characters lives happen without anything needing to come from outside the box.
Special Effects – The effects are used well through the film as they show different levels of damage being caused.
Scene of the Movie – The fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough behind the mystery of the dress.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that can be described with one key world, weird, it is filled with strange moments that only leave us with more questions than answers.
Overall: Very Strange.
Becs (244 KP) rated Seven at Sea in Books
Jul 29, 2019
Captivating memoir on taking risks
TRIGGER WARNINGS: mild swearing and peril
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Working a temp job night shift in a cubicle in Manhattan to help provide for his wife and their five children, the youngest with Down Syndrome, Erik Orton knew something had to change. Watching the sailboats on the Hudson River during his breaks, he dared to dream, and craved a life that was full of more than just surviving day to day. Despite having no sailing experience, his wife Emily’s phobia of deep water, and already being financially stretched, the family of seven turned their excuses into reasons and their fears into motivation as they set off on a voyage that ultimately took them 5,000 miles from New York to the Caribbean and back. Their journey that included plenty of learning and adventure, showed them the value of doing things their own way, and most importantly gave them time together as a family before their oldest daughter left for college.
And while this memoir is incredibly inspiring, and the Ortons did certainly gain a lot from sailing with their family for a year, the takeaway of Seven at Sea is not that all of us should quit our jobs and buy sailboats. The book serves as an encouraging reminder that our lives can be what we make them regardless of what society dictates. Many of us, especially parents, tend to fell stuck in our circumstances. The Ortons show us that on a large or small scale, we can imagine more boldly than we usually allow for and dare to dream of a life that doesn’t look anything like the one we have now – and still manage to be great parents, spouses, and members of society.
I am generally not taken with memoirs as they never capture my attention, but this was so good! I was captivated and enthralled from the get go. The narration was told in both Erik and Emily’s point of view. That added a fun and interesting appeal to this novel.
One thing I loved while reading was how the highs and the lows of taking such a risk like this were included. Erik and Emily keep it authentic, unique, and honest. It was really well-written and has as much adventure as an action novel! The one thing worth noting that I had a problem with, was that it was a slow read. It took a bit more time and motivation to read, but this adventure story made up for it. Emily’s insight helped round out Erik’s insight. She was the glue that held everything together, while Erik was the lumber. This memoir tells a story of risks and going the road less traveled by. Seven at Sea teaches the reader that the journey is the destination and that relationships are the most important things we have, that we should always strive to strengthen and refine them.
Most people can’t take the risk of just up and leaving their current situation like Erik and Emily did with their five children. Seven at Sea reminds us that our lives are what we make of them and that we should all have the courage to seek our dream lives whatever they may be.
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Working a temp job night shift in a cubicle in Manhattan to help provide for his wife and their five children, the youngest with Down Syndrome, Erik Orton knew something had to change. Watching the sailboats on the Hudson River during his breaks, he dared to dream, and craved a life that was full of more than just surviving day to day. Despite having no sailing experience, his wife Emily’s phobia of deep water, and already being financially stretched, the family of seven turned their excuses into reasons and their fears into motivation as they set off on a voyage that ultimately took them 5,000 miles from New York to the Caribbean and back. Their journey that included plenty of learning and adventure, showed them the value of doing things their own way, and most importantly gave them time together as a family before their oldest daughter left for college.
And while this memoir is incredibly inspiring, and the Ortons did certainly gain a lot from sailing with their family for a year, the takeaway of Seven at Sea is not that all of us should quit our jobs and buy sailboats. The book serves as an encouraging reminder that our lives can be what we make them regardless of what society dictates. Many of us, especially parents, tend to fell stuck in our circumstances. The Ortons show us that on a large or small scale, we can imagine more boldly than we usually allow for and dare to dream of a life that doesn’t look anything like the one we have now – and still manage to be great parents, spouses, and members of society.
I am generally not taken with memoirs as they never capture my attention, but this was so good! I was captivated and enthralled from the get go. The narration was told in both Erik and Emily’s point of view. That added a fun and interesting appeal to this novel.
One thing I loved while reading was how the highs and the lows of taking such a risk like this were included. Erik and Emily keep it authentic, unique, and honest. It was really well-written and has as much adventure as an action novel! The one thing worth noting that I had a problem with, was that it was a slow read. It took a bit more time and motivation to read, but this adventure story made up for it. Emily’s insight helped round out Erik’s insight. She was the glue that held everything together, while Erik was the lumber. This memoir tells a story of risks and going the road less traveled by. Seven at Sea teaches the reader that the journey is the destination and that relationships are the most important things we have, that we should always strive to strengthen and refine them.
Most people can’t take the risk of just up and leaving their current situation like Erik and Emily did with their five children. Seven at Sea reminds us that our lives are what we make of them and that we should all have the courage to seek our dream lives whatever they may be.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Nerve (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I walked into Nerve expecting it to be a teenage version of the morose 2014 horror/thriller 13 Sins. While similar in premise, 13 Sins is dark and sinister, while Nerve is something different all together. Based on the 2012 young adult novel by the same name, Nerve is a story about an unassuming high school senior who decides to challenge her own comfort zone by playing an online reality game of where “watchers” (Like Facebook Followers) offer up various “Dare’s” for players to complete which nets them money. The more “watchers” players gain, the bigger the possible rewards, but at what cost?
Nerve feels like its two movies in one. For the first two acts, Nerve is a young adult/teen film where we follow Vee (Emma Roberts) as she breaks free from her unassertive personality that has her in the background among her friends and afraid to tell her family where she wants to go to college. She is a good kid, but too timid to go after anything she really wants. Instead through the challenges of the game Nerve, she gains confidence in herself as she becomes involved with another Nerve player Ian (Dave Franco). Together, along with a fast paced uplifting soundtrack, we are taken on a fun and entertaining ride where you cannot help but care about these two and wonder what you would do in their situation.
Roberts and Franco are likable in their roles and they lead a stellar young cast who are all realistic in their youthful portrayal. Not too surprising because they are actually young actors, but it is important to note that the cast feels “real,” which helps sell the believability that a game like “Nerve” could actually exist in our world. Especially in a world where we are glued to our phones, tablets and computers in order to be the “star of our own lives” through the instant gratification of social media. Along with the recent emergence of the popularity of augmented reality games like Pokémon Go, it is conceivable that a game like Nerve could exist in our near future.
But this is where the film starts to fall apart. In the third act, the film hastily transitions into a social commentary of the anonymity of the internet, mob think and what we are willing to share online. While I understand this is a message that seem appropriate a story like this, that message would have been better served in a sinister film like the aforementioned, 13 Sins, and not in a movie which up to that point, felt that it was headed towards being an inspiring and uplifting film. It doesn’t help that the resolution of that social commentary was comical in its execution that completely pulls you out of the film. It was an unnecessary turn that wanted us to focus on the game Nerve rather than the characters the story made us care about. It’s a shame really because up until that point, the film Nerve was fun, enjoyable and inspiring, only to fall apart for no real reason other than to make a weak attempt at being something more than a teen movie.
I am sure the young adult/teenage audience this film is marketed towards will enjoy Nerve, but this film is really more of a rental or at most, a matinee.
Nerve feels like its two movies in one. For the first two acts, Nerve is a young adult/teen film where we follow Vee (Emma Roberts) as she breaks free from her unassertive personality that has her in the background among her friends and afraid to tell her family where she wants to go to college. She is a good kid, but too timid to go after anything she really wants. Instead through the challenges of the game Nerve, she gains confidence in herself as she becomes involved with another Nerve player Ian (Dave Franco). Together, along with a fast paced uplifting soundtrack, we are taken on a fun and entertaining ride where you cannot help but care about these two and wonder what you would do in their situation.
Roberts and Franco are likable in their roles and they lead a stellar young cast who are all realistic in their youthful portrayal. Not too surprising because they are actually young actors, but it is important to note that the cast feels “real,” which helps sell the believability that a game like “Nerve” could actually exist in our world. Especially in a world where we are glued to our phones, tablets and computers in order to be the “star of our own lives” through the instant gratification of social media. Along with the recent emergence of the popularity of augmented reality games like Pokémon Go, it is conceivable that a game like Nerve could exist in our near future.
But this is where the film starts to fall apart. In the third act, the film hastily transitions into a social commentary of the anonymity of the internet, mob think and what we are willing to share online. While I understand this is a message that seem appropriate a story like this, that message would have been better served in a sinister film like the aforementioned, 13 Sins, and not in a movie which up to that point, felt that it was headed towards being an inspiring and uplifting film. It doesn’t help that the resolution of that social commentary was comical in its execution that completely pulls you out of the film. It was an unnecessary turn that wanted us to focus on the game Nerve rather than the characters the story made us care about. It’s a shame really because up until that point, the film Nerve was fun, enjoyable and inspiring, only to fall apart for no real reason other than to make a weak attempt at being something more than a teen movie.
I am sure the young adult/teenage audience this film is marketed towards will enjoy Nerve, but this film is really more of a rental or at most, a matinee.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Dictator (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly one of the most daring names in comedy recently. A Cambridge graduate, the comedian-actor who has starred in fairly controversial films “Bruno” and “Borat” returns with director Larry Charles in 2012’s “The Dictator”. What can be said about Cohen, over other contemporary comedians, is his absolutely excellent ability to inhabit a character role – both in and out of the film he is portrayed in. “The Dictator” is no exception to this, yet it might be the controversy regarding the Academy Awards snub that is remembered more than this film.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Jeff Nichols recommended The Hustler (1961) in Movies (curated)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated One Two Three in Books
Jun 10, 2021
A touching read about family and resilience
Nothing new ever happens in the town of Bourne. Everyone knows everyone. So when the moving trucks arrive, it causes a stir. Bourne is a town known for one thing: seventeen years ago, their water turned green. Many of their citizens of died, others have cancer and other illnesses, and others gave birth to children with birth defects. You'll never find a town more accommodating to wheelchairs. But it has one doctor (also the priest) and one therapist (Nora Mitchell). Bourne houses Nora's triplets, beloved by all: Mab, the "normal" one, who is expected to go to college and escape this place; Monday, who runs the town library from their home and prefers yellow everything (food, clothes, and more); and Mirabel, the smartest of them all, confined to her wheelchair, dependent on her sisters and mom for so much and on a computer to act as her Voice. Nora has been fighting for justice since the water turned green. When the newcomers come to town, the past roars up, involving the Mitchell triplets and bringing to light decades old secrets. How hard will Mab, Monday, and Mirabel fight for their town?
This is such an original book from the author of THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS IS. It sneaks up on you with its quiet and touching story. Frankel weaves an emotional tale that makes you think. It's utterly fascinating, this devastated town and its broken people. So many of its citizens are sick or have lost someone they love. Yet there is a lot of hope in Bourne, especially as the story is told through young Mab, Monday, and Mirabel's eyes. They've only known their mom's sadness and bitterness, never having met their father, yet each has their own (often quirky) way of looking at life.
Frankel alternates viewpoints from each triplet, naming her chapters One (Mab), Two (Monday), and Three (Mirabel) and repeating from there. It takes a moment to get into the groove of each triplets' voice, but once you do, it's easy to get attached to them. Mab feels the weight of the world on her shoulders, sweet Monday takes everything literally, and Mirabel must remain cheerful, despite all her medical issues. Their mom holds a variety of jobs, including town therapist and working at the local bar, and maintains a decades long lawsuit and grievance. It's hard to know what the triplets' life might be like without Nora's anger and bitterness.
Still, ONE TWO THREE highlights the power of sisterhood and family. You'd think a book about a broken town would be depressing and a slugfest, but it's anything but. In many ways, I found this to be almost a mystery, as the sisters work together to figure out about the newcomers in their town and how they relate to the years of devastation wrecked upon Bourne. The result is utterly compelling, with years of intertwined secrets making for a fascinating read.
Still, at the core, this is a story about teenage girls and how they relate to the world. It's sweet, heartbreaking, and extremely well-written. There are a few points where I wish the plot sped up a bit, but overall, this is a touching and lovely story about a family and their small town.
I received a copy of this book from Henry Holt & Company and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. Look for ONE TWO THREE on 6/8/2021!
This is such an original book from the author of THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS IS. It sneaks up on you with its quiet and touching story. Frankel weaves an emotional tale that makes you think. It's utterly fascinating, this devastated town and its broken people. So many of its citizens are sick or have lost someone they love. Yet there is a lot of hope in Bourne, especially as the story is told through young Mab, Monday, and Mirabel's eyes. They've only known their mom's sadness and bitterness, never having met their father, yet each has their own (often quirky) way of looking at life.
Frankel alternates viewpoints from each triplet, naming her chapters One (Mab), Two (Monday), and Three (Mirabel) and repeating from there. It takes a moment to get into the groove of each triplets' voice, but once you do, it's easy to get attached to them. Mab feels the weight of the world on her shoulders, sweet Monday takes everything literally, and Mirabel must remain cheerful, despite all her medical issues. Their mom holds a variety of jobs, including town therapist and working at the local bar, and maintains a decades long lawsuit and grievance. It's hard to know what the triplets' life might be like without Nora's anger and bitterness.
Still, ONE TWO THREE highlights the power of sisterhood and family. You'd think a book about a broken town would be depressing and a slugfest, but it's anything but. In many ways, I found this to be almost a mystery, as the sisters work together to figure out about the newcomers in their town and how they relate to the years of devastation wrecked upon Bourne. The result is utterly compelling, with years of intertwined secrets making for a fascinating read.
Still, at the core, this is a story about teenage girls and how they relate to the world. It's sweet, heartbreaking, and extremely well-written. There are a few points where I wish the plot sped up a bit, but overall, this is a touching and lovely story about a family and their small town.
I received a copy of this book from Henry Holt & Company and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. Look for ONE TWO THREE on 6/8/2021!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Memento (2000) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
One of my favourite films
Film #5 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Memento
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated George and Lizzie in Books
Oct 29, 2020
This is the seventh book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet.
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.