Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Lee (2222 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Tension packed, slow burner
I headed into ‘It Comes At Night’ in a similar way to when I saw ‘Get Out‘ a few months back – having seen a lot of positive four or five star buzz about it on my news feeds, but without actually seeing the trailer. I skimmed a couple of reviews this time, just to get a rough idea of what I was in for, and one of the words which seemed to crop up on a number of them was ‘unsettling’. Well, that sold it for me! Get Out is my favourite movie of the year so far, and I felt that my enjoyment of seeing that had been greatly improved having not seen the trailer, and with no expectations. So, I went into ‘It Comes At Night’ hoping for a similar experience.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sing Me to Sleep in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Beth is a ridiculously tall, horribly ugly girl suffering though high school. Her nickname is “the Beast.” She is bullied by everyone. Her face is scared and pimply and messed up, she was born that way and nothing works to get rid of it. The only people in the world that she has are her mother—who loves her fiercely—and her best friend since pre-school, Scott.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Last Song in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Ronnie does not want to spend the summer with her dad. Her dad left them three years ago, and she hasn’t really forgiven him for it. She hated him for it so much, that she refused to take his calls, quit playing the piano, and never read the letters he sent her. What is she going to do all summer stuck with a dad she hates in a small town with nothing but sand on every side of her, no clubs, no friends…
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Brokenhearted: The Power of Darkness in Books
May 23, 2019
In this 396 page love story, its clear to see why the Touched Saga has become so popular. Unlike the previous books before it, this one takes place around Gemma. The first half has you feeling sorry for Gemma and even teary eyes. Whereas the last half leaves you breathless and anxious. I found that the whole book kept me on edge. With new information and new ways to think about things, I can't help but be left in a state of amazement and stupor. Don't get me wrong, each book thus far has left me with a lot of new ways of thinking of things, but this book has left my mind boggled and my heart gripped in a vice.
I had first though this was taking on another Twilight Sage feel, with Gemma being all dressed and even making it seem the love interests will change in a way. This might have been slightly annoying at first. Even though I love Evan and all his character stands for and often wanted to cry a bit myself, I couldn't help but have that feeling it might have been inspired by the Twilight Saga. I was glad I held my breath though. I understand that the depression and what not had to be endured as it was crucial to learning more about Gemma and her role in everything. And though it seemed slow moving at first, it wasn't long before things began to piece together.
Learning that Gemma wasn't as mortal as she appeared to be, even with her ability to see things she shouldn't, was quite unrealistic and not exactly what I expected. I had thought maybe she was an angel as well, but to find out she was a witch left me breathless. I was intrigued to learn more about witches and how Hell works was quite a breath taking experience. I hadn't ever thought to Hell being a beautiful but twisted place to reside. I found that I quite enjoyed learning about the Souls residing in Hell as well as how it worked. The details on the different souls, the wildlife, and different things that can be found in Hell were truly awe inspiring. I was floored by how the images Amore had given me through her details of Hell and the Souls that resided there. I especially loved how the level of humanity also determined how the Souls lived and how some of them can be grouped up and live in villages together. To see how the way one mortal lives to be the determinating factor in how their soul is affected in Hell. I was just truly amazed to how it all worked and how the Witches would take claim to the Angels they managed to capture and how that Witch blood could lead to ecstasy to the Souls in their realm was a concept that was new to me, and I loved it.
We all know that we have that one person we would do anything to keep by our side and to watch Gemma be willing to become a full fledged witch in order to save Evan was truly liberating. I couldn't help but be moved by this sacrifice she was willing to make. To see how her love could allow her to see the deceptions and give her courage to stand against Sohpia, or Lucifer, was truly encouraging and proving her character has grown stronger and even more brave than she had when the series started. I was just excited by her actions and her willingness to do whatever it took to keep her Evan close to her, no matter what.
Overall, Brokenhearted was a truly amazing book. I would rate it five stars out of five stars. I firmly believe that out of the series thus far, this has to be my favorite book. It not only allowed the reader to see how much Gemma would do for her love, but brought up Hell and all the interesting concepts Amore had thought of where Witches and Souls acted in Hell.
I had first though this was taking on another Twilight Sage feel, with Gemma being all dressed and even making it seem the love interests will change in a way. This might have been slightly annoying at first. Even though I love Evan and all his character stands for and often wanted to cry a bit myself, I couldn't help but have that feeling it might have been inspired by the Twilight Saga. I was glad I held my breath though. I understand that the depression and what not had to be endured as it was crucial to learning more about Gemma and her role in everything. And though it seemed slow moving at first, it wasn't long before things began to piece together.
Learning that Gemma wasn't as mortal as she appeared to be, even with her ability to see things she shouldn't, was quite unrealistic and not exactly what I expected. I had thought maybe she was an angel as well, but to find out she was a witch left me breathless. I was intrigued to learn more about witches and how Hell works was quite a breath taking experience. I hadn't ever thought to Hell being a beautiful but twisted place to reside. I found that I quite enjoyed learning about the Souls residing in Hell as well as how it worked. The details on the different souls, the wildlife, and different things that can be found in Hell were truly awe inspiring. I was floored by how the images Amore had given me through her details of Hell and the Souls that resided there. I especially loved how the level of humanity also determined how the Souls lived and how some of them can be grouped up and live in villages together. To see how the way one mortal lives to be the determinating factor in how their soul is affected in Hell. I was just truly amazed to how it all worked and how the Witches would take claim to the Angels they managed to capture and how that Witch blood could lead to ecstasy to the Souls in their realm was a concept that was new to me, and I loved it.
We all know that we have that one person we would do anything to keep by our side and to watch Gemma be willing to become a full fledged witch in order to save Evan was truly liberating. I couldn't help but be moved by this sacrifice she was willing to make. To see how her love could allow her to see the deceptions and give her courage to stand against Sohpia, or Lucifer, was truly encouraging and proving her character has grown stronger and even more brave than she had when the series started. I was just excited by her actions and her willingness to do whatever it took to keep her Evan close to her, no matter what.
Overall, Brokenhearted was a truly amazing book. I would rate it five stars out of five stars. I firmly believe that out of the series thus far, this has to be my favorite book. It not only allowed the reader to see how much Gemma would do for her love, but brought up Hell and all the interesting concepts Amore had thought of where Witches and Souls acted in Hell.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Visual Treat
It was always going to be a tricky proposition to craft a sequel to Ridley Scott’s divisive 1982 film, Blade Runner. By divisive, I mean that while it has gained a cult following in the decades since its initial release, the film’s initial box-office run resulted in a gross that many would label ‘disappointing.’
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/