Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated They Almost Always Come Home in Books
Apr 27, 2018
They Almost Always Come Home by Cynthia Ruchti
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Aaron Falk is an investigator for the federal police in Melbourne. There, he follows money trails left by criminals. And while he may live a rather solitary life, at least he's also left behind his childhood home of Kiewarra, where the locals literally ran him and his father out of town. But all that changes when Aaron finds out that his best friend in Kiewarra, Luke Hadler, is dead. So is Luke's wife, Karen, and their young son, Billy. Luke apparently killed Karen and Billy before turning the gun on himself: the only person he spared in his family was his baby daughter, Charlotte. Aaron grew up as a second son to Luke's parents, and they call on him now to look into Luke and Karen's finances. Were things really so bad that Luke would enact such violence? As Aaron and the local police sergeant, Raco, begin investigating, it's quickly apparent that the case isn't as cut and dried as it seems. But the people of Kiewarra have long memories, and they still blame Aaron for something that happened over 20 years ago. Is Aaron safe in his hometown? And can he clear Luke's name--if it even needs clearing?
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Whistle In The Dark in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Jen Maddox is on holiday with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Lana, when Lana disappears. But, somehow, Lana is found four days later: confused and bloody, but in one piece. Jen and her husband, Hugh, are beyond relieved, but Jen cannot shake the fear plaguing her. Lana has struggled with depression these past few years. What happened over those four days? Why can't her daughter remember anything? Jen knows she should welcome Lana back with welcome arms, but she cannot rest until she knows what happened to her daughter.
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a complicated read, which made me feel and think all sorts of feelings. I have to definitely point out that there are triggers for self-harm and suicide in this one. The book hit home for me, as I lost a dear cousin-who was more like a sister to me-to suicide. She was a little older than Lana when she died, but I saw a lot of similarity between the two, and I could understand some of Jen's frustration and sadness with her daughter because of it. Because, honestly, a lot of this book is just sad and depressing.
It's written in short snippets, not long chapters, each with a title, and they are all told from Jen's perspective. I would have liked to have heard from Lana sometimes. Because this is Emma Healey, many of these little pieces and insights are brilliant, truly. But, also, I won't lie, some of this book is a slog. It mirrors living with someone with depression--it's slow, painful, and tough. I wouldn't call this a fun read, even though I could definitely enjoy some of the breakthroughs and beautiful moments Lana and Jen did share.
While the premise of this book is finding out what happened to Lana, much of it is just Jen and Lana's daily life--trying to find themselves after Lana's disappearance. You see the guilt Jen feels about her daughter's mental illness and the complications of motherhood--how hard it can be. Jen's older daughter Meg and her husband, Hugh, are more supporting characters to the Jen and Lana show. There definitely are some humorous pieces among the sad parts--Jen and her husband struggling to raise a teen, Jen's interactions with her mom stand out. And Lana, as she comes across through her mom's eyes, is an interesting and dynamic character. Her grim sense of humor is enjoyable, too.
I found this novel to be very driven by emotions and to be a deep look at a family who is torn apart not only by Lana's disappearance, but by mental illness. I think, too, overall it does a very good job portraying what mental illness can do to a family. Even Lana's descriptions of what her depression feels like are quite well-done. So much of the book actually made me feel tense on Jen's behalf, and you just can't help but feel so sad and scared for both Jen and Lana. The little snippets of the book really do a good job of capturing moments--that is life, after all. A series of moments that add up.
I wish that Jen had been less obsessed with figuring out what had happened to Lana, but I think I can understand where it came from (her fear). For a little bit, I wasn't sure I could push through the book, but I was also motivated to figure out where Lana had been for those four days, and I was attached to Lana (and even Jen), I won't lie. The end of the book also redeemed it for me. There was something about it that made it all work.
This book isn't for everyone, and in some ways, I even have trouble recommending it for those who have struggled with mental illness, because it can be really triggering. Still, I think the author treated the topic very respectfully. I couldn't help but feel for Jen and I really found myself wanting to help Lana, to reach out to her. Healey really does know how to create nuanced characters. Still, if this is your first time reading her, I can't help but recommend the amazing Elizabeth Is Missing, which I just adore. Still, it has its lovely moments and is certainly well-written, if not a slow read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Expiation - The Whisper of Death in Books
May 23, 2019
I loved this series and this book more than I thought I would in the beginning. I thought I had cried a lot in the previous books, but this is the book that I cried a ton in. Between the birth of their son, their promise and all the attacks and unbelievable allies during the pregnancy, there was constantly something going on to keep you interested in and in the thought of what might happen. I hadn't known what to expect when Gemma became a Witch but I can tell you, what happened was not on my list of what I thought would happen. I really liked how Amore even included herself at the end. I have to say this book definitely wrapped up the story in such a beautiful way that it is hard to believe it is finally finished.
I would first like to say seeing the Witch's align with their enemies to help protect Gemma was amazing. It left a lot of suspense in the air. I had waited for them to battle constantly but the fact they worked together to protect Gemma was truly amazing and in some moments quite amusing. As we saw in Brokenhearted, Devina had some strong feelings toward Evan and she kept making it clear as she helped protect Gemma. She did everything to cause Gemma and Evan to gain doubt in their relationship and everything else. The Witches even went to school and caused some trouble while protect Gemma. I have to say those antics around Gemma's mortal friends were my favorite. It was fun and quite amusing. The Witches over all were amusing to see do things outside of their home world, Hell.
But it wasn't just the unlikely alliance but the touching moments with everyone involved. To see the baby be born and to witness how happy they were to receive the child was truly touching. I was very upset that she had to become a witch and in the worst way possible. She was killed before Evan could put his plan into action and to see him suffer and become willing to allow Sophia's poison causing everything she knew and love to be lost to her forever. I hated seeing that. I was heart broken for Evan and their baby. Gemma took her place in Hell and proceeded to be a fairly ruthless Witch. She enjoyed the tempting and harvesting of Souls. I found myself holding my breath, hoping it wasn't true and that it was just an act. To find out that her past was erased from her kept me holding on to hope that Evan would free her.
I quite enjoyed learning more about how the Witches worked and learning about Sophia. Though previous books gave us some insight to how Sophia is and about her past, it isn't until this final extension that you learn how truly dark Sophia is and how completely selfish she is. I mean, you can expect that from the devil and with her being the devil, I don't know why I would have imagined her being sweet or even someone I could love. I was not disappointed in how truly evil she was. Though, some of her actions still surprised me. Especially where Gemma and Evan were concerned. However, her getting what she wants didn't surprise me much. But how she went along with obtaining what she wanted was truly mystifying. I loved how Amore detailed and described her and how Gemma and Evan felt towards her. It kept the story moving forwarded and full of suspense.
However, it was the ending seeing Gemma, Evan and their son reunited, even though is was in Heaven. I found myself crying for the last forty pages or so. I was just truly amazed with the story and even though it left you in awestruck and happy, you can't help but wish things had been different. To have the three of them find another way to be together. I have to say overall this was just a truly amazing experience. I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. I would rate the series the same way. I was able to experience all kinds of emotions. I found this book to be exhilarating and truly touching. I did think this book was the most depressing of them all, but watching Evan struggle through so much could have that affect on anyone.
I would first like to say seeing the Witch's align with their enemies to help protect Gemma was amazing. It left a lot of suspense in the air. I had waited for them to battle constantly but the fact they worked together to protect Gemma was truly amazing and in some moments quite amusing. As we saw in Brokenhearted, Devina had some strong feelings toward Evan and she kept making it clear as she helped protect Gemma. She did everything to cause Gemma and Evan to gain doubt in their relationship and everything else. The Witches even went to school and caused some trouble while protect Gemma. I have to say those antics around Gemma's mortal friends were my favorite. It was fun and quite amusing. The Witches over all were amusing to see do things outside of their home world, Hell.
But it wasn't just the unlikely alliance but the touching moments with everyone involved. To see the baby be born and to witness how happy they were to receive the child was truly touching. I was very upset that she had to become a witch and in the worst way possible. She was killed before Evan could put his plan into action and to see him suffer and become willing to allow Sophia's poison causing everything she knew and love to be lost to her forever. I hated seeing that. I was heart broken for Evan and their baby. Gemma took her place in Hell and proceeded to be a fairly ruthless Witch. She enjoyed the tempting and harvesting of Souls. I found myself holding my breath, hoping it wasn't true and that it was just an act. To find out that her past was erased from her kept me holding on to hope that Evan would free her.
I quite enjoyed learning more about how the Witches worked and learning about Sophia. Though previous books gave us some insight to how Sophia is and about her past, it isn't until this final extension that you learn how truly dark Sophia is and how completely selfish she is. I mean, you can expect that from the devil and with her being the devil, I don't know why I would have imagined her being sweet or even someone I could love. I was not disappointed in how truly evil she was. Though, some of her actions still surprised me. Especially where Gemma and Evan were concerned. However, her getting what she wants didn't surprise me much. But how she went along with obtaining what she wanted was truly mystifying. I loved how Amore detailed and described her and how Gemma and Evan felt towards her. It kept the story moving forwarded and full of suspense.
However, it was the ending seeing Gemma, Evan and their son reunited, even though is was in Heaven. I found myself crying for the last forty pages or so. I was just truly amazed with the story and even though it left you in awestruck and happy, you can't help but wish things had been different. To have the three of them find another way to be together. I have to say overall this was just a truly amazing experience. I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. I would rate the series the same way. I was able to experience all kinds of emotions. I found this book to be exhilarating and truly touching. I did think this book was the most depressing of them all, but watching Evan struggle through so much could have that affect on anyone.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
All the fun of the circus
Ah, the movie musical. Once the choice of matinee viewings and Saturday nights in front of the TV, they’ve evolved over the last decade into something completely mainstream. From the ridiculously good remake of Hairspray in 2007, to the vibrant Mamma Mia, which gets its very own sequel Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again this year, musicals have become the ultimate in escapism.
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Carriers (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Brian and Danny grew up as two brothers who were relatively close to one another. They cherish the memories they have of Turtle Beach, a beach their family vacationed to every summer. The abandoned motel in Turtle Beach may be their best bet of surviving the highly contagious disease that now plagues the entire country and possibly the world. Not much is known about the virus other than the victims coughing up blood and bleeding from the ears as their condition worsens. Brian actually came up with a few rules that will hopefully get him, his girlfriend Bobby, his brother Danny, and Danny's friend Kate through this disease ridden world to Turtle Beach clean. The rules include avoiding the infected at all costs, disinfecting anything they've touched in the past 24 hours, and that the infected are already dead as there is no cure. You may survive if you stick to the rules, but actually abiding by them is an entirely different story.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
