Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Fairest of All: A Tale of the Wicked Queen (Villains #1) in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
This is my first foray into the villain’s series so I thought I should read them in order. The collection has been on my “to read” list forever but the twisted tales series kept multiplying and skipping the queue! As I am a good girl and never break the rules, I started with book one: Fairest of All.
I will say that this series of books are quite thin and are an easy read. This may be due to them falling into the Young Adult category but I can safely add them into the “busy working mum” category too. (P.S. Booksirens, NetGalley and Goodreads: this should definitely become a category!)
Personally, I didn’t have high hopes for these books due to some of the reviews that I read beforehand, particularly those that refer to the series as “fan fiction”. However, in these cases, I believe the reviewers in question have missed the point of these novels: these are not to be compared with twisted tales as they are not retellings. These novels provide a backstory to our villains: a different perspective that explores the circumstances around their evil actions.
Fairest of All tells the tale of the Wicked Queen from Snow White before she became wicked. The reader is introduced to a new bride who loves her husband, the king, and adores her new stepdaughter Snow White. Snow returns her stepmother’s love, referring to her as “momma”, and the little family are perfectly happy and content, attending celebrations in the kingdom and having cosy dinners in the castle. Their life truly is idyllic, that is, until the call of battle draws the king away.
Initially little is said of the Queen’s life before she met the king. We know her father was a renowned mirror maker and her mother was considered extraordinarily beautiful before her untimely death.
However, the Queen’s former life is slowly revealed: a heartbreaking tale that exposes the vulnerability of the monarch and endears her to the reader. Suddenly, it seems almost natural that a person so deprived of love could possess such vanity and unthinkable that this character could descend into madness: committing the evil deeds that we know lie in the upcoming pages.
Despite her flaws, I found I never identified with the Queen fully as a human character. I suspect this is because the Queen is only referred to by her title throughout the novel; a curious method by Valentino. Is Valentino keeping us focused on her fate as the Wicked Queen? Perhaps she is suggesting that the Queen has never been her own woman: merely a tortured mirror maker’s daughter who became a figurehead and a mother in one fell swoop?
The Queen is such a complex character that all the other characters in the book seem quite flat in comparison. Again, I suspect this is intentional: the tale is from the Queen’s perspective after all. Nevertheless, the reader is reunited with old characters such as Snow, the huntsman and the mirror as well as being introduced to new characters, the most notable of which are the three cousins of the King.
The Odd Sisters are described as such from the beginning: a titbit I greatly enjoyed as their novel has recently been released. They are fascinating characters, always keeping the reader on their toes and causing us to never quite know whether they are pure evil or simply insane. Their transparent disappointment that the Queen is not an evil stepmother and their candid conversations about magic cause worry for characters and readers alike: it is clear that they have more than a passing impact on the Queen’s demise.
The names of the characters within this novel possess a clear imagery of light and darkness. Snow and Verona (Latin for a true/honest image) bring out a side to the Queen that is the polar opposite of that of the odd sisters and the magic mirror; who is often referred to as “the Slave”. I’m sure this is how the Queen sees the relationship but the reader sees this from an entirely different perspective. Although the face appears to do her bidding, it becomes more apparent that the power within the relationship does not lie with the Queen.
Overall, I really enjoyed this novel. In my opinion it stayed true to the fairytale without purely repeating the story. Valentino humanised the Queen for the reader before promptly showing how hiding your vulnerabilities and not accepting help can lead you down a dangerous path. The Queen is not evil from the beginning: in fact, she shows her capacity for love throughout, but her depression, grief and madness gradually consume her.
For me, the twist in the final few pages make this book a must read. I still can’t decide whether Valentino has made the docile, simple character of Snow into a strong heroine or whether she has upturned all of our childhoods and is hinting at a darker side. Needless to say, I can’t wait to see what comes next.
I will say that this series of books are quite thin and are an easy read. This may be due to them falling into the Young Adult category but I can safely add them into the “busy working mum” category too. (P.S. Booksirens, NetGalley and Goodreads: this should definitely become a category!)
Personally, I didn’t have high hopes for these books due to some of the reviews that I read beforehand, particularly those that refer to the series as “fan fiction”. However, in these cases, I believe the reviewers in question have missed the point of these novels: these are not to be compared with twisted tales as they are not retellings. These novels provide a backstory to our villains: a different perspective that explores the circumstances around their evil actions.
Fairest of All tells the tale of the Wicked Queen from Snow White before she became wicked. The reader is introduced to a new bride who loves her husband, the king, and adores her new stepdaughter Snow White. Snow returns her stepmother’s love, referring to her as “momma”, and the little family are perfectly happy and content, attending celebrations in the kingdom and having cosy dinners in the castle. Their life truly is idyllic, that is, until the call of battle draws the king away.
Initially little is said of the Queen’s life before she met the king. We know her father was a renowned mirror maker and her mother was considered extraordinarily beautiful before her untimely death.
However, the Queen’s former life is slowly revealed: a heartbreaking tale that exposes the vulnerability of the monarch and endears her to the reader. Suddenly, it seems almost natural that a person so deprived of love could possess such vanity and unthinkable that this character could descend into madness: committing the evil deeds that we know lie in the upcoming pages.
Despite her flaws, I found I never identified with the Queen fully as a human character. I suspect this is because the Queen is only referred to by her title throughout the novel; a curious method by Valentino. Is Valentino keeping us focused on her fate as the Wicked Queen? Perhaps she is suggesting that the Queen has never been her own woman: merely a tortured mirror maker’s daughter who became a figurehead and a mother in one fell swoop?
The Queen is such a complex character that all the other characters in the book seem quite flat in comparison. Again, I suspect this is intentional: the tale is from the Queen’s perspective after all. Nevertheless, the reader is reunited with old characters such as Snow, the huntsman and the mirror as well as being introduced to new characters, the most notable of which are the three cousins of the King.
The Odd Sisters are described as such from the beginning: a titbit I greatly enjoyed as their novel has recently been released. They are fascinating characters, always keeping the reader on their toes and causing us to never quite know whether they are pure evil or simply insane. Their transparent disappointment that the Queen is not an evil stepmother and their candid conversations about magic cause worry for characters and readers alike: it is clear that they have more than a passing impact on the Queen’s demise.
The names of the characters within this novel possess a clear imagery of light and darkness. Snow and Verona (Latin for a true/honest image) bring out a side to the Queen that is the polar opposite of that of the odd sisters and the magic mirror; who is often referred to as “the Slave”. I’m sure this is how the Queen sees the relationship but the reader sees this from an entirely different perspective. Although the face appears to do her bidding, it becomes more apparent that the power within the relationship does not lie with the Queen.
Overall, I really enjoyed this novel. In my opinion it stayed true to the fairytale without purely repeating the story. Valentino humanised the Queen for the reader before promptly showing how hiding your vulnerabilities and not accepting help can lead you down a dangerous path. The Queen is not evil from the beginning: in fact, she shows her capacity for love throughout, but her depression, grief and madness gradually consume her.
For me, the twist in the final few pages make this book a must read. I still can’t decide whether Valentino has made the docile, simple character of Snow into a strong heroine or whether she has upturned all of our childhoods and is hinting at a darker side. Needless to say, I can’t wait to see what comes next.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jul 4, 2019
Director: Ari Aster
Writer: Ari Aster (Screenplay)
Starring: Florence Pugh, Will Poulter, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper, Liv Mjones, Anna Astrom, Julia Ragnarsson
Plot: A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown's fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.
Runtime: 2 Hours 20 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Wicker Man on Acid
Story: Midsommar starts when young lady Dani (Pugh) has her family die suddenly, turning to the only person left in her life, her boyfriend Christian (Reynor) who has started to move away from their relationship. Christian and his friends Josh (Harper), Mark (Poulter) and Pelle (Blomgren) are planning a trip to Pelle’s home in Sweden for a special mid-summer festival.
Christian trying to do the right thing for Dani, invites her along, but it isn’t long before the festival turns into a cultural nightmare for the outsiders who have never seen the customs before.
Thoughts on Midsommar
Characters – Dani is a young lady that has suffered a heart-breaking tragedy in her life, leaving her along in the world, struggle to get over the loss of her family, she is unsure about her relationship with her boyfriend and agrees to go with him on the trip to Sweden. Dani is trying her best to get on with her life, which is seeing her have the good and bad days, while on the commune she starts to relax more in life. Christian is the student boyfriend of Dani, he is starting to question the relationship about to end it before the tragedy strikes, he invites her believing she won’t go, while also hoping to find out whether they should stay together. Josh is a student friend of Christian, who has been working on his paper on different cultures, he sees this event a major part of his studies, only he doesn’t seem to respect enough cultures. Mark is the comic relief, he wants to go to Sweden to meet women, he is quick to turn to drink or drugs, while always putting his foot in it.
Performances – Florence Pugh is the star of the show, she does show the grief required in her role, which shows us how hard to is finding life. Jack Reynor has finished turning his career around after Transformers, with one that must make people take him seriously now. Will Poulter will make you laugh with nearly everything he says, while William Jackson Harper will make you dislike his characters arrogance quickly.
Story – The story here follows a young woman dealing with grief of losing her family, trying to get away from her past by getting away from the world with the festival which soon sees her trapped with her friends with a cult that has strict rules. Much like Hereditary, we are tackling grief on a personal level, unlike Hereditary we find ourselves not seeing a timeline to make us understand the recover process that Dani is trying to go through. The story does have a huge problem for me though, is that this is a story which the people should just walk or run away after seeing the first major incident, not just calmly say ‘sure this is a different culture we should see what happens next’ this is easily one of the biggest let down in any horror. We also do spend way too much time just turning to drugs as an excuse rather than trying to solve the real problems and the students just being arrogant not seemingly wanting to do anything with their lives.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from graphic imaginary that we see from the injuries, we do have tension growing and the make up team should be praised for just how real everything looks. The mystery comes from just what is happening with this cult and what they will do next.
Settings – The film is set in the Swedish countryside away from the world, the only type of place a cult could operate in around the modern day. The sets are the best thing about this film because they are crafted which such love and you can’t help but think everything you see is a clue to what is happening.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do bring us the graphic images of the injuries that people are going through. The make up team work wonders on this film.
Scene of the Movie – Dancing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Just using drugs to explain why these people are friends.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that is set and created wonderfully on the outside, only to fall short on the story which only drags along without reaching any levels of scares.
Overall: Not reaching the potential.
Rating
Writer: Ari Aster (Screenplay)
Starring: Florence Pugh, Will Poulter, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper, Liv Mjones, Anna Astrom, Julia Ragnarsson
Plot: A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown's fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.
Runtime: 2 Hours 20 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Wicker Man on Acid
Story: Midsommar starts when young lady Dani (Pugh) has her family die suddenly, turning to the only person left in her life, her boyfriend Christian (Reynor) who has started to move away from their relationship. Christian and his friends Josh (Harper), Mark (Poulter) and Pelle (Blomgren) are planning a trip to Pelle’s home in Sweden for a special mid-summer festival.
Christian trying to do the right thing for Dani, invites her along, but it isn’t long before the festival turns into a cultural nightmare for the outsiders who have never seen the customs before.
Thoughts on Midsommar
Characters – Dani is a young lady that has suffered a heart-breaking tragedy in her life, leaving her along in the world, struggle to get over the loss of her family, she is unsure about her relationship with her boyfriend and agrees to go with him on the trip to Sweden. Dani is trying her best to get on with her life, which is seeing her have the good and bad days, while on the commune she starts to relax more in life. Christian is the student boyfriend of Dani, he is starting to question the relationship about to end it before the tragedy strikes, he invites her believing she won’t go, while also hoping to find out whether they should stay together. Josh is a student friend of Christian, who has been working on his paper on different cultures, he sees this event a major part of his studies, only he doesn’t seem to respect enough cultures. Mark is the comic relief, he wants to go to Sweden to meet women, he is quick to turn to drink or drugs, while always putting his foot in it.
Performances – Florence Pugh is the star of the show, she does show the grief required in her role, which shows us how hard to is finding life. Jack Reynor has finished turning his career around after Transformers, with one that must make people take him seriously now. Will Poulter will make you laugh with nearly everything he says, while William Jackson Harper will make you dislike his characters arrogance quickly.
Story – The story here follows a young woman dealing with grief of losing her family, trying to get away from her past by getting away from the world with the festival which soon sees her trapped with her friends with a cult that has strict rules. Much like Hereditary, we are tackling grief on a personal level, unlike Hereditary we find ourselves not seeing a timeline to make us understand the recover process that Dani is trying to go through. The story does have a huge problem for me though, is that this is a story which the people should just walk or run away after seeing the first major incident, not just calmly say ‘sure this is a different culture we should see what happens next’ this is easily one of the biggest let down in any horror. We also do spend way too much time just turning to drugs as an excuse rather than trying to solve the real problems and the students just being arrogant not seemingly wanting to do anything with their lives.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from graphic imaginary that we see from the injuries, we do have tension growing and the make up team should be praised for just how real everything looks. The mystery comes from just what is happening with this cult and what they will do next.
Settings – The film is set in the Swedish countryside away from the world, the only type of place a cult could operate in around the modern day. The sets are the best thing about this film because they are crafted which such love and you can’t help but think everything you see is a clue to what is happening.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do bring us the graphic images of the injuries that people are going through. The make up team work wonders on this film.
Scene of the Movie – Dancing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Just using drugs to explain why these people are friends.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that is set and created wonderfully on the outside, only to fall short on the story which only drags along without reaching any levels of scares.
Overall: Not reaching the potential.
Rating
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 5, 2019 (Updated Nov 5, 2019)
Anyone who knows me knows that I have pretty much zero interest in cars. As long as they can get me from A to B, reliably and comfortably, then that's good enough for me. I have even less interest in watching cars race round and round and round at high speeds for hours on end too - if I wanted to watch that, then I'd just go and stand on a bridge overlooking the M25 for a while. So, a movie about a determined team of American engineers and designers looking to build a Ford racing car with the potential to finally beat Ferrari in the 1966 Le Mans race in France? Well, that doesn't immediately sound like my kind of movie. But, a great looking trailer and an interesting cast got me interested, and in the end I am so glad that I saw it.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Caretakers in Books
Apr 6, 2020
As soon as I read the synopsis for The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell, I was instantly hooked. I knew it was a book that I had to read. It's like it was calling out to me saying "read me...read me." What a wild ride The Caretakers had in store for me!
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Tessa Shepard made a documentary that helped free a man that she thought was framed for murder. However, when it seems he's killed the police chief's daughter, Tessa's life becomes upended. Around the same time, Tessa and her twin sister inherit a large estate named Fallbrook. There she meets two old ladies who are the caretakers of Fallbrook that have their own crazy story about the past when it comes to Fallbrooks history. With danger lurking around every corner, Tessa must try to survive and figure out the two old ladies' story.
I could not fault the plot of The Caretakers at all. It was absolutely solid from beginning to end. With The Caretakers, I felt like I was sort of getting two stories in one which was great! The first story is Tessa's. The narrative follows Tessa as she deals with her conscience about freeing a man from prison who may have actually been guilty. She's also dealing with the fallout between her and her twin sister Margot. With Tessa's reputation in tatters, Tessa tries to stay out of the spotlight and deal with what's going on in her personal life, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy. The second narrative belongs to the two old ladies and caretakers of Fallbrook, Kitty and Deidre. Their story was the most interesting to read about. Kitty and Deidre remember two different accounts of what actually befell Fallbrook when they were children. It was traumatizing for both of them, and at least one of the sisters has blocked out the actual memories of the horrible event that happened there. I found myself trying to guess which events were the true ones. Kudos to Eliza Maxwell for adding so many plot twists to The Caretakers that I never saw coming! I absolutely was thrilled that there were so many plot twists. Just when I thought I had the story figured out, a curve ball was thrown at me making me have to start my guess work all over again. However, all cliff hangers and questions are answered by the end of the book.
The characters in The Caretakers were all written fantastically! All were fleshed out appropriately even the minor characters. It was easy to empathize with everything Tessa was going through. She had so much bad stuff going on at one time. Learning her back story, it was easy to see why she thought the way she did. I liked Margot as well. While she's not a main character, she does play a fairly important role in Tessa's life. Sometimes I felt like Margot was a little too closed off when it came to Tessa and her husband, Ben. This wasn't due to bad writing, but quite the opposite. I felt like this was a character flaw that even real life people struggle with. I enjoyed Oliver's character. He made for a fantastic antagonist. Oliver was the one who Tessa freed from prison due to her documentary. Through fantastic storytelling, it was easy to see why Oliver went off the deep end after he was released. I felt bad for him actually. Deidre was an interesting character, and I came to understand why she was wary of strangers meddling in hers and Kitty's business. Kitty was my all time favorite character in The Caretakers though. I was sucked up in her childlike way of acting. She seemed to trust everyone and came across as such a sweet person. It seemed like she was too nice to be unkind towards anyone. I felt like Kitty had the most interesting backstory out of all the characters. The Cooke family, who had previously lived in Fallbrook before it became derelict, had the most intriguing story out of everyone. I really enjoyed reading about them.
Trigger warnings for The Caretakers include profanity, murder, violence, drinking, and police corruption.
To say I was blown away by The Caretakers is an understatement. Seriously, this book gave me goosebumps and a severe book hangover. That's how great it was! With intriguing plot lines and fantastic characters, it was such a fantastic read. I would most definitely recommend The Caretakers by Eliza Maxwell to those aged 17+. I really believe readers of all genres will really enjoy this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Eliza Maxwell for sending me a paperback and Netgalley for an eBook of The Caretakers in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Marc Riley recommended Hex Enduction Hour by The Fall in Music (curated)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Inheritance Games in Books
May 21, 2021
I love love love these type of mystery books where riddles are involved. When I heard about The Inheritance Games by Jennifer Lynn Barnes, I was instantly intrigued. I was not disappointed. In fact, The Inheritance Games reminded me a lot of The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin although it wasn't a clone of it, thankfully.
I felt like the plot was solid. Although it is highly improbable that a teenager would be heir to a will of a random stranger and have to solve riddles to find out why, it could still be possible. My interest was piqued, and I found The Inheritance Games to be quite the page turner. The chapters would usually end in a small cliffhanger causing me to want to learn more and begin reading from the next chapter. Before I knew it, I had finished the book quite quickly. It was interesting to see Avery, the main character, go from being very poor to the richest person in the world. I enjoyed finding out why Tobias Hawthorne left her everything. I kept guessing as to why, but my theories were quickly shot down when it became apparent I was wrong. Becoming a billionaire placed Avery's life in danger and even more so when Tobias' family discovered they weren't getting much from Tobias at the reading of the will. Not only did Avery have to try to find out why Tobias chose her for his sole heir, but she also had to try to stay alive! While there weren't any major plot twists in this book, there are quite a few small ones that will leave the reader guessing. I was a little disappointed that there wasn't a major reveal as to why Avery was chosen as Tobias' heir. It was a little underwhelming and anti-climatic to discover why he had chose Avery. This book does end with a cliffhanger since it is going to be a series. However, the main questions I had within the first book in The Inheritance Games series were all answered.
I loved each and every character in The Inheritance Games with the exception of Avery's best friend Max. Don't get me wrong, each character felt realistic and fleshed out enough, but Max was just annoying. Max has very strict parents, and Avery's only interactions with Max are through phone calls and texts. However, the way Max spoke was what was annoying. She didn't swear, so she'd use non-swear words for swear words. However, every other word was a would be swear word. I am not exaggerating. I don't think I've ever met a teen where they would swear that much or use other words in place of swear words that often. It just got annoying quickly, and I found myself dreading whenever Max was featured. I did love all the other characters though. I loved Avery and her thirst for knowledge. Avery was a very smart girl with a good head on her shoulders. I admired the way she could quickly work out any puzzle or riddle. I liked reading about her thought process towards figuring something out. I felt like Avery was also very selfless. Jameson, one of the Hawthorne brothers, was another character I really loved. His smarts for figuring out riddles and puzzles were also admirable. Grayson, another Hawthorne brother, was a bit of a wild horse. I never knew if I could trust him or not. (Although I didn't really know if I could trust anyone while reading The Inheritance Games. I kept trying to figure out if there were any ulterior motives at play.) Grayson's wanting to help out people whether it was Avery or his community through the Hawthorne Foundation was commendable. Nash, the oldest Hawthorne brother, was so stereotypically Texan that it made me laugh (as I am from Texas), but I loved it! Nash's laid back attitude was refreshing. Alexander, the youngest Hawthorne brother, wasn't featured as much for me to fully form an opinion, but I liked what I read about him. Avery's sister Libby had awesome dress sense, and I did love how she looked out for her sister for the most part. Figuring out Emily's role in all this was interesting. I would have liked to see more backstory about Emily and Rebecca (the hired helps daughters) though. They both had the potential to really flesh the story out more.
Trigger warnings for The Inheritance Games include some violence, some gun violence, attempted murder, and death.
Overall, The Inheritance Games is a quick paced read full of mystery and intrigue that will leave its readers not wanting to put it down. I would definitely recommend The Inheritance Games by Jennifer Lynn Barnes to those aged 14+ who love a fast paced mystery that will leave them guessing throughout the book. I can not wait for the next book in the series!
I felt like the plot was solid. Although it is highly improbable that a teenager would be heir to a will of a random stranger and have to solve riddles to find out why, it could still be possible. My interest was piqued, and I found The Inheritance Games to be quite the page turner. The chapters would usually end in a small cliffhanger causing me to want to learn more and begin reading from the next chapter. Before I knew it, I had finished the book quite quickly. It was interesting to see Avery, the main character, go from being very poor to the richest person in the world. I enjoyed finding out why Tobias Hawthorne left her everything. I kept guessing as to why, but my theories were quickly shot down when it became apparent I was wrong. Becoming a billionaire placed Avery's life in danger and even more so when Tobias' family discovered they weren't getting much from Tobias at the reading of the will. Not only did Avery have to try to find out why Tobias chose her for his sole heir, but she also had to try to stay alive! While there weren't any major plot twists in this book, there are quite a few small ones that will leave the reader guessing. I was a little disappointed that there wasn't a major reveal as to why Avery was chosen as Tobias' heir. It was a little underwhelming and anti-climatic to discover why he had chose Avery. This book does end with a cliffhanger since it is going to be a series. However, the main questions I had within the first book in The Inheritance Games series were all answered.
I loved each and every character in The Inheritance Games with the exception of Avery's best friend Max. Don't get me wrong, each character felt realistic and fleshed out enough, but Max was just annoying. Max has very strict parents, and Avery's only interactions with Max are through phone calls and texts. However, the way Max spoke was what was annoying. She didn't swear, so she'd use non-swear words for swear words. However, every other word was a would be swear word. I am not exaggerating. I don't think I've ever met a teen where they would swear that much or use other words in place of swear words that often. It just got annoying quickly, and I found myself dreading whenever Max was featured. I did love all the other characters though. I loved Avery and her thirst for knowledge. Avery was a very smart girl with a good head on her shoulders. I admired the way she could quickly work out any puzzle or riddle. I liked reading about her thought process towards figuring something out. I felt like Avery was also very selfless. Jameson, one of the Hawthorne brothers, was another character I really loved. His smarts for figuring out riddles and puzzles were also admirable. Grayson, another Hawthorne brother, was a bit of a wild horse. I never knew if I could trust him or not. (Although I didn't really know if I could trust anyone while reading The Inheritance Games. I kept trying to figure out if there were any ulterior motives at play.) Grayson's wanting to help out people whether it was Avery or his community through the Hawthorne Foundation was commendable. Nash, the oldest Hawthorne brother, was so stereotypically Texan that it made me laugh (as I am from Texas), but I loved it! Nash's laid back attitude was refreshing. Alexander, the youngest Hawthorne brother, wasn't featured as much for me to fully form an opinion, but I liked what I read about him. Avery's sister Libby had awesome dress sense, and I did love how she looked out for her sister for the most part. Figuring out Emily's role in all this was interesting. I would have liked to see more backstory about Emily and Rebecca (the hired helps daughters) though. They both had the potential to really flesh the story out more.
Trigger warnings for The Inheritance Games include some violence, some gun violence, attempted murder, and death.
Overall, The Inheritance Games is a quick paced read full of mystery and intrigue that will leave its readers not wanting to put it down. I would definitely recommend The Inheritance Games by Jennifer Lynn Barnes to those aged 14+ who love a fast paced mystery that will leave them guessing throughout the book. I can not wait for the next book in the series!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."