Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pixie (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Olivia Cooke - utterly enchanting (1 more)
Just the right balance of black humour and Tarantino-esque violence
Once upon a Time in the West... of Ireland
You know sometimes when you see a trailer you think "oh yeah - this is a must see"! The trailer for "Pixie" (see below) was one such moment for me. A spaghetti western set in Sligo? With Alec Baldwin as a "deadly gangster priest"? Yes, yes, yes!
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
In a remote Irish church, two Irish priests and two "visiting Afghan Catholic priests" are gunned down by a couple of losers in animal masks - Fergus (Fra Fee) and Colin (Rory Fleck Byrne) - over a stash of MDMA worth a million Euros. This reignites a simmering gang war between the gangster families of Dermot O'Brien (Colm Meaney) and Father Hector McGrath (Alec Baldwin). Linking everything together is Pixie (Olivia Cooke), O'Brien's daughter, who has a magnetic effect on men. She is somehow subtly the woman controlling everything going on.
Drawn into the mayhem are hapless teens Frank (Ben Hardy) and Harland (Daryl McCormack) - both of who have the hots for Pixie - who embark on a wild and bloody road-trip around southern Ireland.
Key to your belief in the ridiculous story is that the character of Pixie has to have the beauty and charisma to utterly enslave the poor men she crosses paths with: taking a "Kalashnikov to their hearts" as drug dealer Daniel (Chris Walley) puts it. And Olivia Cooke - so good in "Ready Player One" - absolutely and completely nails the role. I'm utterly in love with her after this movie, and she's thirty years too young for me! There's a sparkle and a mischief behind her that reminded me strongly of a young Audrey Hepburn.
Supporting her really well are the "Harry and Ron" to Cooke's Hermione - Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor in "Bohemian Rhapsody") and Daryl McCormack. And the trio make a truly memorable "love triangle". A bedroom scene manages to be both quietly erotic and excruciatingly funny in equal measure.
The direction here is by Barnaby Thompson, who's better known as a producer with the only previous movie directing credits being the St Trinian's reboots in 2007/09. Here he manages to channel some of the quirky camera shots of the likes of Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn and mix them with the black humour and comedic gore of Quentin Tarantino. The taciturn hit-man Seamus (Ned Dennehy) typifies the comedy on offer, using a Land Rover to drag a poor victim round in a figure of eight on a soggy moor to make him talk!
Where I think the movie wimps out a bit is in an ecclesiastical shoot-out finale. Vaughn's "Kingsman: The Secret Service" set the bar here for completely outrageous and out-there church-based violence. Here, the scene is both tame by comparison (not necessarily a bad thing!), but also highly predictable. Given this is supposed to be "a plan", none of it feels to be very well thought-through! As such, belief can only be suspended for so long.
The visuals and music are fab. The cinematography - by veteran John de Borman - makes the west Ireland coast look utterly glorious and the Irish tourist board must have been delighted. There are also some beautifully-framed shots: a boot-eye (US: trunk-eye) perspective is fabulous, and there's a gasp-inducing fade-back to Pixie's face following a flashback. And a shout-out too to the editing by Robbie Morrison, since some of the plot twists are delivered as expert surprises.
The music - by Gerry Diver and David Holmes - is also spectacularly good at propelling the action and maintaining the feel-good theme.
Where I did have issues was with the audio mix. I'm sure there were a bunch of clever one-liners buried in there, but the combination of the accents (and I've worked in Northern Ireland for 20 years and am "tuned in"!) and the sound quality meant I missed a number of them. I will need another watch with subtitles to catch them all.
Thanks to ANOTHER WRETCHED LOCKDOWN in the UK this was my last trip to the cinema for at least a month: I was one of only four viewers in the "Odeon" cinema for this showing. Because it's a great shame that so few people will get to see this (at least for a while), since its the sort of feelgood movie that we all need right now. Slick and utterly entertaining, I'll quietly predict that this one will gain a following as a mini-cult-classic when it gets to streaming services. Recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check-out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/11/02/pixie-once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-of-ireland/. Thanks.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Box (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) don't seem to be any different than any other hardworking family in the late 1970s on the surface, but things aren't always what they seem. After a freak accident at the doctor's office when she was 18, Norma suffers from a disfigurement on her foot and has a noticeable limp. A student humiliates her in front of her class while she's teaching and Norma is under the impression that would be the worst part of her day until she's informed that the discount faculty had been getting on tuition would be cut next semester. Meanwhile, Arthur works for NASA and had been counting on being recruited as an astronaut since he aced every test, but is rejected for failing the psychological exam. Already living paycheck to paycheck, Norma and Lewis wonder how they'll support their son Walter and themselves until an opportunity presents itself in the form of a box. Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a man who's missing half of his face, shows up at the Lewis' home and makes them an offer that could solve all of their financial situations at the expense of somebody else with the simple push of a button. But the consequences that unfold for Norma and Arthur ar far greater than what they bargained for.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Expanse in TV
Sep 4, 2020 (Updated Feb 11, 2021)
In this particular future, where there exists a cold war tension between the splintered factions of humanity across the solar system, all is not well. Earthers, Dusters (Martians) and Skinnies (Belters) compete for resources and political strength in an ever shifting landscape of trust and betrayal. It is a sci-fi geek’s paradise, full of believable tech, an extensive character list and jargon coming out of the wazoo! It’s all very complicated… and season five just finished airing on Amazon Prime on Wednesday 3rd Feb, so I thought it a good time to talk about it in detail.
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
Based on the novel series by James S. A. Corey (actually the assumed name of collaborators Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham), which began in 2011 and has produced one book a year since, the TV version has been on the go since 2015, first at SyFy and then at Amazon after being cancelled unfairly, and to mass uproar from the fans, after Season three. It isn’t something you watch casually – either you are into it and make a point of obsessing about it, or you watch a few, feel completely lost and admit it isn’t for you; although you suspect it is good and you just didn’t make the effort to engage enough. Sci-fi this earnest can be like that: a little unforgiving to tourists and passers-by.
Personally, I went through 2 phases with it. The first was watching it late at night with autoplay on, falling in and out of sleep depending on how exciting what was happening was, missing a lot of the detail and feeling largely lost in space. The second was coming back to Season 4 recently (about 3 weeks ago), after taking in a full recap of the story, and becoming a true fan that couldn’t get enough of the complex web of storylines, motives and personalities. Catching up enough to have to wait a week between episodes for the last 4 weeks, which has been tremendously rewarding.
Not that I had a major problem with it from the start. I thought it had a great look and a great mood about it, but lacked some star quality in the cast and was fairly opaque storywise. It always had potential. It was a question of whether you could be bothered to invest in that, knowing that it may go nowhere or even get cancelled very quickly – the TV universe is not known for being kind to sci-fi, as die-hard fans of Firefly still weep about regularly, and quite correctly.
In season one you watch it for the only person onboard that you have heard of, namely Thomas Jane (from The Mist and The Punisher) as det. Joe Miller, a cynical sleuth complete with a great anachronistic hat, who gets wrapped up in a mystery so mysterious it is often hard to work out what he is doing at all, and why… he literally comes and goes, for reasons that become apparent in later seasons. A frustrating and yet fascinating entity that must have been a real test to get right.
The show’s main cast also take a lot of time to warm up, to the point where you wonder who they are and whether they will be in it for long? Steven Strait, Dominique Tipper, Wes Chatham and Cas Anvar, as the ragtag collective of a small ship (they eventually name The Rocinante) that finds itself at the centre of a huge political shitstorm as the last bastion of impartial hope and moral reasoning, exude such little charisma at first it all seems doomed to fail. But, something magical begins to happen, by virtue of being in their presence a lot – you start to care. And the more you care the more the subsequent events have the power to stun you sideways!
More than anything else I can think of in recent years, this is a show that rewards patient investment. You will have definite moments of wanting to quit or take a long break, but the more faith you show in it, the more it will reward you in the long run. For me it was the climax of season 3 when I realised I was 100% into it, and that everything that had happened to that point was now starting to make sense in a larger context. Basically, what you think this is and what you assume it is about early doors, is not where it ends up. It goes somewhere way better!
Perhaps because it has the support of the book series as inspiration, the writing and story arc feels stronger and stronger in time. There are to date 9 books, so there is still scope to let this run for a good few years. And it does start to feel like there is a point where it will all completely tie together. Anyway, I am rambling as much as an average episode seems to do here. The point is, there is something right on the tightrope edge of classic or near miss going on with this. The cast have all really grown into their skins and personalities, and there are some moments in seasons 4 & 5 that left me jaw dropped at their dramatic weight!
Look, this isn’t going to be for everyone. It is very easy to say “I don’t get it” and move on with this show, but I am a sci-fi veteran , if not full geek, and I now absolutely love it. Cult status then is what we are talking about here. There will be a good wait for season six now, but the cliffhanger is mouth-watering, so I am in! It’s far from impossible they will ruin the vibe at some point and it will all fall flat… or, it could become the stuff of legend. I’ll be there to find out either way. No chance I am doing 5 seasons of something to drop out at that point.
Take away the space and the spaceships and this is a story about division and rights, and the hard work it takes to meet a diplomatic solution to the many differences and grievances that exist between different tribes and factions. What will some do to gain power? What will others do to ensure freedom and justice? How easy is it to waste life in the name of a cause? Oh, yeah and there’s also the little detail of an ancient alien civilisation that have been leaving tech and artifacts all over the solar system for us to fight over and try to control. As I say, the main story element of it all still feels like a partial mystery, and I love that!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
The Force is strong in this one...
Like so many of us, I had theorised what would happen in this movie based on the influx of teaser trailers online, and I'm happy to say, I was wrong on nearly everything! I like being surprised, and this film was just that. A very pleasant surprise. It's Star Wars, like Star Wars should be. Not too heavy on the CGI, plenty of action interlaced with character-driven dialogue and sub-plots, and yes, someone says "I have a bad feeling about this..." which is just ace!
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.