Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Brothers Bloom (2009) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Stephen and Bloom are brothers who seem to bounce from foster home to foster home for whatever reason imaginable. That is until the day Stephen sets in motion his first con. After the con is executed exactly as planned, the brothers get their first taste of success only to quickly have it taken away from them. The wheels were already turning though as destiny had knocked on their door. Now, twenty five years later, The Brothers Bloom are arguably the two best con men in the world. While Stephen seems to enjoy pushing himself to create the perfect con, Bloom wants more out of life. He's sick of being a character his brother wrote and wants an unwritten life. They decide to do one last job involving a beautifully charming heiress, Penelope, that takes it upon herself to collect hobbies. Stephen plans on everything except for Bloom falling in love with her. So now, a con that was planned to take them around the world has turned into a romantic adventure that has an ending even Stephen couldn't see coming.
Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.
Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.
The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list.
Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.
Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.
The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Notes on Blindness: A Journey Through The Dark in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<I>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</I>
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled <I>Touching the Rock</I> (1990), John’s book has been republished as <I>Notes on Blindness</i> after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today,<i> Notes on Blindness</i> is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
It is not often a blind man writes a book, and “write” is a word used due to the lack of a better. John M. Hull gradually lost his sight, registering as blind in 1980, a couple of days before the birth of his son. Although anticipating the event, John struggled to come to terms with his new circumstances and adjust to a new way of living. From 1983 through to 1985, John recorded his thoughts on tape, in diary form, as a way to ascertain and understand his predicament. Originally titled <I>Touching the Rock</I> (1990), John’s book has been republished as <I>Notes on Blindness</i> after the release of the film of the same name.
Initially, John made recordings every day, dictating the everyday occurrences he encountered. Amazingly, despite his disability, John was able to continue as a university lecturer and delve deeper into the world of theology. The way John thinks things through as he speaks reflects his academic abilities. Although he may have despaired at the thoughts of not being able to see his children, he had a fairly positive outlook on life.
John’s thought capacity and religious ideology are evident in his assemblage of diary entries. As a blind person, he learns to see the world in an alternative way, and often feels closer to God as a result. Through these new experiences, John begins to see the light despite the darkness.
The metaphorical descriptions of blindness help the reader to understand the horror and difficulties not being able to see visually provokes. This is heightened by John’s recordings of the bad dreams he often suffers, in which he is able to see. His fixations on these dreams are assumedly a fascination with visual imagery, which he does not have access to in his waking life.
It is hard not feel sorry for John as he reports the conversations he has with his young children. The effort to communicate and play with them is far greater than a seeing parent. Remarkably, as John begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, his children take the situation in their stride.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> is also an educational narrative for those without sight problems. John explains the things other people, in attempts to be helpful, do that result in making things far more confusing for John as he tries to navigate his way from one place to another. Despite what most think, blind people are fairly good at walking routes they are familiar with, and, with the help of a stick, can safely travel through new areas. Once people start shouting instructions, it is difficult to pay attention to the location and listen to everyone else at the same time.
John’s voice is extremely articulate, and his thoughts profound, which may suggest heavy editing when compiling the recordings into written form. However, as he is an academician, his eloquence of speech does not feel forced or faked.
<i>Notes on Blindness</i> remains the same as the original publication but with the added inclusion of an introduction by Cathy Rentzenbrink, and an epilogue by his wife Marilyn, written in 2016, a year after his death. These, the latter in particular, provide an insight into how John’s blindness affected those around him and emphasises what a truly remarkable man he was.
Of the many memoirs available on bookshelves today,<i> Notes on Blindness</i> is a truly unique publication. It is not telling a story, or recounting a well-lived life, but gives great insight into the world of the blind. As John’s thoughts were not originally recorded with intention of being available to everyone, they are all the more personal and honest, provoking emotion and providing the reader with a new way of seeing. It is a book that will stay with you for a very long time.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Spin in Books
Jun 21, 2019
The synopsis for Spin by K.J. Farnham really grabbed my attention. I had to know why Jenna was acting out. Plus, I liked how the synopsis mentioned that diary entries would be involved. Luckily, I was not disappointed one bit.
Jenna is a 16 year old high school girl. She's the picture of perfection. She's beautiful, popular, makes good grades, athletic, and is a great friend and daughter. However, when a certain person from her past moves back to her town, Jenna's painful memories of the past resurface. When it all becomes too much, Jenna acts out by drinking, taking drugs, and other bad behaviors. One night, on the way to confront her abuser, Jenna disappears. Through Jenna's diary, her point of view, and the points of view from her friends and family, we are able to piece together what happened to Jenna during her childhood and leading up to her disappearance.
I found the plot for Spin to be very interesting. Although it has been done many times before, Farnham was able to keep it fresh as well as fascinating. The plot leaves no cliff hangers and every question I had was answered. The one thing that was a little annoying was that in the same chapter, in a few parts of the book, the tense would switch between past and present. This was obviously missed in editing since the whole book is written in past tense. Other than that, Spin was written beautifully.
I really did enjoy the characters in Spin. Jenna was very likable, and I felt bad for her. I wanted things to go back to normal for her throughout the book. She was so vulnerable, and I hated how her events of her childhood had robbed her of all she had going for her. Keeley and Delaney, Jenna's best friends, felt realistic. Their actions regarding Jenna's behavior seemed like what most friends would be like at that age. I enjoyed reading things from their point of view. Dustin, Jenna's boyfriend, was also a great character. I hated how Jenna was treating him. I understood why she was acting the way she was towards him, but I just hate that he never knew the reasoning behind her actions. It still wouldn't have made it right, but at least Dustin would have had some insight. Leighton was my favorite character in Spin. Even I wanted to be friends with Leighton. I love what a great friend she was to Jenna and how loyal she was. Yes, Leighton did make some bad decisions, but her love for Jenna was admirable. I do wish Bonnie, Jenna's mom, would have read more of her diary. My heart went out to Bonnie especially when she felt like it was her fault after reading an entry in Jenna's diary before she went missing. I did feel that Bonnie was a little strict with Jenna especially when it came to Dustin. I felt like the character of Joseph was written perfectly. Was he truly a changed man or was he still sick?
The pacing for Spin was fantastic. Not once did I feel like the pacing was too slow or slowing down. It was never too quick either where I became lost. This book held my attention throughout. I was buckled up to go wherever Spin wanted to take me!
Trigger warnings for Spin include underage drinking, drug use, sexual situations (although not graphic), rape, attempted rape, child and teen sexual abuse, incest, profanity, and death.
All in all, Spin is a great read with a fantastic set of characters and an enthralling plot. Yes, it is a dark and emotional read, but it will not be a disappointing one for sure! I would definitely recommend Spin by K.J. Farnham to those aged 16+!
Jenna is a 16 year old high school girl. She's the picture of perfection. She's beautiful, popular, makes good grades, athletic, and is a great friend and daughter. However, when a certain person from her past moves back to her town, Jenna's painful memories of the past resurface. When it all becomes too much, Jenna acts out by drinking, taking drugs, and other bad behaviors. One night, on the way to confront her abuser, Jenna disappears. Through Jenna's diary, her point of view, and the points of view from her friends and family, we are able to piece together what happened to Jenna during her childhood and leading up to her disappearance.
I found the plot for Spin to be very interesting. Although it has been done many times before, Farnham was able to keep it fresh as well as fascinating. The plot leaves no cliff hangers and every question I had was answered. The one thing that was a little annoying was that in the same chapter, in a few parts of the book, the tense would switch between past and present. This was obviously missed in editing since the whole book is written in past tense. Other than that, Spin was written beautifully.
I really did enjoy the characters in Spin. Jenna was very likable, and I felt bad for her. I wanted things to go back to normal for her throughout the book. She was so vulnerable, and I hated how her events of her childhood had robbed her of all she had going for her. Keeley and Delaney, Jenna's best friends, felt realistic. Their actions regarding Jenna's behavior seemed like what most friends would be like at that age. I enjoyed reading things from their point of view. Dustin, Jenna's boyfriend, was also a great character. I hated how Jenna was treating him. I understood why she was acting the way she was towards him, but I just hate that he never knew the reasoning behind her actions. It still wouldn't have made it right, but at least Dustin would have had some insight. Leighton was my favorite character in Spin. Even I wanted to be friends with Leighton. I love what a great friend she was to Jenna and how loyal she was. Yes, Leighton did make some bad decisions, but her love for Jenna was admirable. I do wish Bonnie, Jenna's mom, would have read more of her diary. My heart went out to Bonnie especially when she felt like it was her fault after reading an entry in Jenna's diary before she went missing. I did feel that Bonnie was a little strict with Jenna especially when it came to Dustin. I felt like the character of Joseph was written perfectly. Was he truly a changed man or was he still sick?
The pacing for Spin was fantastic. Not once did I feel like the pacing was too slow or slowing down. It was never too quick either where I became lost. This book held my attention throughout. I was buckled up to go wherever Spin wanted to take me!
Trigger warnings for Spin include underage drinking, drug use, sexual situations (although not graphic), rape, attempted rape, child and teen sexual abuse, incest, profanity, and death.
All in all, Spin is a great read with a fantastic set of characters and an enthralling plot. Yes, it is a dark and emotional read, but it will not be a disappointing one for sure! I would definitely recommend Spin by K.J. Farnham to those aged 16+!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Red Joan (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
There are some films that just stop me in my tracks, not because they're good or bad, but because they're so mediocre. I watched this two weeks ago and I've sat down to try and write this review about 8 times, each time I've ended up barely writing a sentence before giving up.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
The cast is an impressive selection and I'll talk about some of them in a bit but first I want to mention the advertising related to the cast. Almost every poster I saw had the main cast's names plastered on it, and rightly so, but that all included Cardi B and Lizzo. I would imagine that a significant amount of people, like me, had expected to see both of their characters in a larger chunk of the film than we actually got. They were very much bit parts and giving them this poster billing seemed more like cashing in on their current success, sensible from an advertising point of view but you already had a massive cast and it really wasn't needed.
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Knives Out was probably my most anticipated film of the festival, so much so that I brought a ticket to see it rather than deal with the hassle of the press screening.
If you take Clue, add some Agatha Christie and maybe a large helping of A-list cast you'll find yourself at the feet of Knives Out. I don't have a problem with any of that at all, the problem I had is that what we got was predictable. That can work, predictable is comforting, but here I watched and felt like I'd seen it before. It felt like I was watching a remake of something. It was Clue without being as fun and Agatha Christie without being as intriguing. Would it have been better had I not been so excited to see it? Potentially, though we'll never know now.
There are definitely things to like though.
We get the classic interview phase with each family member questioned alone, the whole scene has a wonderful flow to it. With the script, the actors and the clips of each character edited together so well you get the perfect comedic timing on everything.
Marta was an interesting character but Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049 and No Time To Die) gave what I felt was an almost forgettable performance, which is incredible considering Marta has a severe problem with lying that leads to hilarious situations. It's a solid performance, I don't want to say she did a bad job, but the other characters are larger than life and it would have been nice to see a little more of that in her. I know she's supposed to be the meek and mild help but you see little glimmers of it in there yet it doesn't come to anything.
Benoit Blanc is Knives Out's Poirot, though he's much more of a crossbreed of Poirot and Hastings. Excellent with the deductions and yet just a little oblivious. Daniel Craig plays him just slightly frustrating, which again is something you'd expect in this sort of thing but I wasn't entirely convinced. I did like Blanc's interactions with Marta, though only from his side of things, it did something interesting to his character but somehow made no impact on Marta's.
A brief special mention should go to Lakeith Stanfield and Noah Segan, their appearances felt fleeting but they were always amusing.
I thought the rest of the cast was good, as you'd expect, that might seems rather dismissive but how am I supposed to feel about it? A-listers in main roles... fantastic, A-listers in cameos... fantastic, but the rest of the characters in this was filled with powerful actors all in bit parts. When that went through my head all I could think was "please sir, I want some more." Toni Collette, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon... great performances but I'd happily have had an encore.
I did enjoy it, but as I sat in the audience and everyone around me roared with laughter at things I thought were just okay I had to wonder what I'd missed. Was it because I was so hyped for it in the first place? Was it festival fatigue? Or have I just seen so much of this that I just couldn't appreciate their take on the classic? I wish I knew.
Cineworld are putting on an Unlimited Screening of this a few days before it goes on general release, I'll definitely be checking it out again and I'm hoping that a second viewing will make me feel differently about it. In the meantime though it's nice to see so many people rating this one highly.
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/knives-out-movie-review.html
If you take Clue, add some Agatha Christie and maybe a large helping of A-list cast you'll find yourself at the feet of Knives Out. I don't have a problem with any of that at all, the problem I had is that what we got was predictable. That can work, predictable is comforting, but here I watched and felt like I'd seen it before. It felt like I was watching a remake of something. It was Clue without being as fun and Agatha Christie without being as intriguing. Would it have been better had I not been so excited to see it? Potentially, though we'll never know now.
There are definitely things to like though.
We get the classic interview phase with each family member questioned alone, the whole scene has a wonderful flow to it. With the script, the actors and the clips of each character edited together so well you get the perfect comedic timing on everything.
Marta was an interesting character but Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049 and No Time To Die) gave what I felt was an almost forgettable performance, which is incredible considering Marta has a severe problem with lying that leads to hilarious situations. It's a solid performance, I don't want to say she did a bad job, but the other characters are larger than life and it would have been nice to see a little more of that in her. I know she's supposed to be the meek and mild help but you see little glimmers of it in there yet it doesn't come to anything.
Benoit Blanc is Knives Out's Poirot, though he's much more of a crossbreed of Poirot and Hastings. Excellent with the deductions and yet just a little oblivious. Daniel Craig plays him just slightly frustrating, which again is something you'd expect in this sort of thing but I wasn't entirely convinced. I did like Blanc's interactions with Marta, though only from his side of things, it did something interesting to his character but somehow made no impact on Marta's.
A brief special mention should go to Lakeith Stanfield and Noah Segan, their appearances felt fleeting but they were always amusing.
I thought the rest of the cast was good, as you'd expect, that might seems rather dismissive but how am I supposed to feel about it? A-listers in main roles... fantastic, A-listers in cameos... fantastic, but the rest of the characters in this was filled with powerful actors all in bit parts. When that went through my head all I could think was "please sir, I want some more." Toni Collette, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon... great performances but I'd happily have had an encore.
I did enjoy it, but as I sat in the audience and everyone around me roared with laughter at things I thought were just okay I had to wonder what I'd missed. Was it because I was so hyped for it in the first place? Was it festival fatigue? Or have I just seen so much of this that I just couldn't appreciate their take on the classic? I wish I knew.
Cineworld are putting on an Unlimited Screening of this a few days before it goes on general release, I'll definitely be checking it out again and I'm hoping that a second viewing will make me feel differently about it. In the meantime though it's nice to see so many people rating this one highly.
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/knives-out-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
I had been wildly swaying between wanting and not wanting to see this, but Cineworld gave us an Unlimited Screening so of course I was going to go.
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html
Natacha (374 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
Jan 23, 2020
More reviews on my blog: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Red Rising is another book that I struggle to rate. I did enjoy the book but it didn't blow my mind. I think it's just an "It's not you, it's me" kind of situation. For the best part of the story, I felt like I was reading a retelling of the Hunger Games (and it was a movie I felt it was just ok, haven't read the books) and mixed with The Punisher (guys loses his wife and needs to get his revenge). I had fun but that's all.
Things I liked:
-The writing was very good. Simple, clear, just the right amount of information and exposition to make us understand the world and characters.
-We have a cast of charters with different and distinct personalities and well fleshed out.
-I really enjoyed the fourth part of the book. At this point, I felt like it lost the Hunger Game vibe. We don't have just one person that needs to take down the system but a whole army that marches against corruption.
-Towards the end, we had two nice twists. One of them had been foreshadowed for a while and the second one I personally saw it coming. Although to be honest when you have 20 pages left you can guess that things will go in a different direction what the author is making you believe. Despite that, I really liked those twists.
-I really like Darrow and Mustang dynamic and relationship. I thought it was well done and it felt natural.
-Now that the Huger Game part of the story is done I'm curious to see what Darrow will do outside in the world and how his plan will unfold.
Things I didn't like
I don't have many negatives. There was nothing wrong with the story but I'll try to point some aspect that bothered me.
-As I mention I didn't care about Hunger Game and throughout a large part of the story I couldn't help but thinking of the similarities.
-I'm a little tired of the "They kill my wife and I need to get revenge and keep her dream alive" trope.
-The story is written in first-person POV and present tense and this is really my least favourite way to tell a story.
-I feel like Darrow is a little bit of a Gary Stu. On so many occasion we have Darrow say things like "I'm stronger, I'm taller, I'm faster than he/she, I know better than them" etc. This is why I don't like first-person POV. When it's the author or another person telling us that the main character is stronger or taller or whatever it feels like an observation. When we have the main character telling us about the fact that they are better than everyone else, for me, they become across as obnoxious and annoying. And because of that, I struggle to really connect with Darrow.
-Rape is used a couple of times to move the plot forward. I don't mind when it's used once but when it's used again and again it feels like the author didn't know what else to do to get the plot going.
So here you have it. It wasn't a bad book there was nothing wrong with it and I understand why so many people rave about it. But personally, I couldn't get into the "this is a great book" place. I'm curious about the rest of the series, I don't feel the need to start right away like with other series, but I will get to the second book eventually.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
All I'd been hearing about Parasite was that it was a masterpiece and amazing, so many people were getting to see previews but of course they were all in London. Then Odeon came to the rescue with their Screen Unseen program so I defected from Cineworld for an evening.
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
