Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Ready-Made Thief in Books
Aug 15, 2017
Narrative flow (2 more)
Wonderful ode to Duchamp
Intense story premise makes it hard to put down
Plot felt a little weak with many aspects that are just plain illogical (1 more)
Science conspiracy was quite frankly boring
A love letter to Marcel Duchamp
Well this book is certainly interesting, so much so that I still don’t fully know what to make of it. The Readymade Thief is a love letter to Marcel Duchamp, a French-American artist that became famous in the early twentieth century for his influence on conceptual art. He is most famous for his readymades, manufactured pieces that he turned into art. His stance on what constituted art is an idea that could be applied to the novel.
“An ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”
It’s art if the artist says that it is art. There are connections if that’s what you want to see. Duchamp’s life and work are threaded throughout the story, even some very small references that are easy to miss, and this was actually pretty awesome. The study of Duchamp’s work I think made for an interesting aspect of the story, and I liked the ideas about the fanatical secret society and the dark sort of humor to the plot.
I have to commend Augustus Rose for his skill in creating a narrative flow that was so easy to take in. For the first half of the book Lee appears lost, like she’s treading water. It had a dream-like feel to it as Lee drifts in and out of different events. As the story goes on and the mystery starts to unravel Lee finds herself completely immersed. This steady shift in tone is reflected beautifully in both the pacing and the prose, from a drug-fueled haze to cold sobriety.
So why do I feel so undecided about this book? The devil is in the plot itself, which to me felt like it had too many holes and not well developed enough at points. Most of the Crystal Castle plot feels like it was thrown out of the window and I found it underwhelming. Then there was Tomi, the hacker. If there is one thing that is difficult to write about hackers and the deep web. I won’t go into many details about it due to spoilers, but there were a lot of pieces of this portion of the plot that was just plain illogical and almost pointless. I even checked with a friend of mine that is a student in cyber security to be sure. Frankly the deep web is almost romanticized in the book when it really shouldn’t be.
Also while I know that convenience was important for creating the dreamy flow that I mentioned earlier, a lot of things seemed a little bit too convenient to be believable a lot of the time. A good portion of the plot was easy to predict, but I was still compelled to read because I wanted to know more of the why than the what.
This book was a pretty cool read overall if you can get over the hangups that I had. It is the type of book that will leave you feeling confused right along with the main character throughout the entire book. All in all it was a mixed bag of mostly good things. It’s definitely an experience and worth the read in the very least to appreciate the tone and the feel of the writing which was really great. It’s the type of story I could easily see adapted to a television drama that I would watch in a heartbeat.
“An ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”
It’s art if the artist says that it is art. There are connections if that’s what you want to see. Duchamp’s life and work are threaded throughout the story, even some very small references that are easy to miss, and this was actually pretty awesome. The study of Duchamp’s work I think made for an interesting aspect of the story, and I liked the ideas about the fanatical secret society and the dark sort of humor to the plot.
I have to commend Augustus Rose for his skill in creating a narrative flow that was so easy to take in. For the first half of the book Lee appears lost, like she’s treading water. It had a dream-like feel to it as Lee drifts in and out of different events. As the story goes on and the mystery starts to unravel Lee finds herself completely immersed. This steady shift in tone is reflected beautifully in both the pacing and the prose, from a drug-fueled haze to cold sobriety.
So why do I feel so undecided about this book? The devil is in the plot itself, which to me felt like it had too many holes and not well developed enough at points. Most of the Crystal Castle plot feels like it was thrown out of the window and I found it underwhelming. Then there was Tomi, the hacker. If there is one thing that is difficult to write about hackers and the deep web. I won’t go into many details about it due to spoilers, but there were a lot of pieces of this portion of the plot that was just plain illogical and almost pointless. I even checked with a friend of mine that is a student in cyber security to be sure. Frankly the deep web is almost romanticized in the book when it really shouldn’t be.
Also while I know that convenience was important for creating the dreamy flow that I mentioned earlier, a lot of things seemed a little bit too convenient to be believable a lot of the time. A good portion of the plot was easy to predict, but I was still compelled to read because I wanted to know more of the why than the what.
This book was a pretty cool read overall if you can get over the hangups that I had. It is the type of book that will leave you feeling confused right along with the main character throughout the entire book. All in all it was a mixed bag of mostly good things. It’s definitely an experience and worth the read in the very least to appreciate the tone and the feel of the writing which was really great. It’s the type of story I could easily see adapted to a television drama that I would watch in a heartbeat.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Motion of Puppets in Books
May 16, 2018
In Keith Donohue's modern retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice, The Motion of Puppets, we're introduced to a range of characters from a besotted husband and his missing wife, to an emotionally unstable puppet girl as the husband embarks on a journey to save his wife from eternity as a doll. For fans of mythology, this sounds like a great read and it is, without a doubt, beautifully written; however, when it comes to execution, the story fell flat.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princess of Thorns is a not-so-classic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story. The main character is actually the daughter of the cursed princess, who awoke from a kiss. Her name is Aurora, like the Disney movie's princess and her mother's name is Rose. In the french version of the tale, Sleeping Beauty's daughter is named Aurore. I believe that her mother's is the shortened form of Briar Rose, like German version of her tale by the Brother's Grimm. If you are familiar with the Grimm and Perrault versions of the tale, not only the Disney one, then you will notice many similarities. In a few versions of the tale, there is an evil step-mother or mother-in-law who attempts to eat the leading lady's children.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
Nick doonan (0 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Apr 4, 2018
A movie you only watch once.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so i was sceptical about watching this movie and have put off watching it for quite some time but, as it is Christopher Nolan and the IMDb ratings seem to show above average on it, i thought i'd give it a chance seen as i loved all his previous movies.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a man with demons. After his daughter fell seriously ill, the former New York police officer began a long descent into alcoholism and emotional distress. His fall was so great; Bill ended up losing his job and fortunately was able to find work as an Air Marshall providing in flight security for commercial routes.
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Lies We Tell Ourselves in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
<i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> by Robin Talley is a realistic tale about the beginning of the integration of coloured people into white schools in late 1950s America. In Virginia it is 1959 and ten Negros are beginning their first day at Jefferson Highschool. The experience is narrated from one of the ten, Sarah’s, perspective. In other parts of the novel the voice changes to that of Linda, a particularly nasty white girl, who is one of countless students opposed to integration.
Although many young people will have been taught about the black civil right movement it is still shocking to read about the horrible things they had to endure. By writing in the first person, Talley encourages the reader to try to understand how they would feel in a similar situation. Sarah and her friends instantly become the victims of verbal and physical abuse that members of authority turn a blind eye to.
To Sarah, Linda is a nasty spoilt bully who, although does not join in with the taunting and abuse, is as bad as the rest of them. Through reading Linda’s account it becomes clear that her behaviour has a lot to do with her home life, in particularly with her father’s attitude towards her. After being forced to partner Sarah for a French project Linda begins to question why there is so much emphasis on skin colour, however not wanting to be shunned by her own friends she keeps these thoughts to herself.
Sarah is also struggling to come to terms with her sexual preference for girls. It has been drilled into her that these thoughts are a sin. She hides her true feelings from everyone and constantly berates herself mentally for being “unnatural”. But it turns out she may not be the only one with these thoughts.
The lies referred to in the title are not the blatant or harmful lies but rather the lies the characters believe or even want to believe. Each chapter begins with a lie that reflects what is occurring in the novel at that time; for example “There’s no need to be afraid” and “I don’t care what they think of me.” This is an interesting way of telling the story as it emphasizes Sarah’s determination to keep going despite what she is subjected to. It also reveals the mental struggles she faces. On the other hand the lies disclose Linda’s conflicting feelings towards the South’s current situation and segregation laws.
Although not a religious novel, each part begins with the title of a Christian hymn. It was the norm for everyone to go to church and, despite the separate churches, was something black and white people did. Sarah and Linda have faith in God yet they both use the bible’s teachings for opposing arguments. The religious aspect also highlights Sarah’s self-hatred and belief that she has fallen into sin.
Unfortunately in today’s world there are still issues with racism and homophobia however after reading <i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> it is evident that these situations have vastly improved, at least in the Western world, since the 1950s. Without children such as Sarah going through these horrible experiences nothing would have changed. There would still be separate schools, slavery and inaccurate opinions about race inequality. America has a lot to thank these brave students who were the first to create mixed race schools.
Overall this is a brilliant book. Well written and realistic, it really draws the reader in to the characters’ stories. Although <i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> is a work of fiction, it is historically accurate and can teach a lot about America’s history to young adults today.
<i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> by Robin Talley is a realistic tale about the beginning of the integration of coloured people into white schools in late 1950s America. In Virginia it is 1959 and ten Negros are beginning their first day at Jefferson Highschool. The experience is narrated from one of the ten, Sarah’s, perspective. In other parts of the novel the voice changes to that of Linda, a particularly nasty white girl, who is one of countless students opposed to integration.
Although many young people will have been taught about the black civil right movement it is still shocking to read about the horrible things they had to endure. By writing in the first person, Talley encourages the reader to try to understand how they would feel in a similar situation. Sarah and her friends instantly become the victims of verbal and physical abuse that members of authority turn a blind eye to.
To Sarah, Linda is a nasty spoilt bully who, although does not join in with the taunting and abuse, is as bad as the rest of them. Through reading Linda’s account it becomes clear that her behaviour has a lot to do with her home life, in particularly with her father’s attitude towards her. After being forced to partner Sarah for a French project Linda begins to question why there is so much emphasis on skin colour, however not wanting to be shunned by her own friends she keeps these thoughts to herself.
Sarah is also struggling to come to terms with her sexual preference for girls. It has been drilled into her that these thoughts are a sin. She hides her true feelings from everyone and constantly berates herself mentally for being “unnatural”. But it turns out she may not be the only one with these thoughts.
The lies referred to in the title are not the blatant or harmful lies but rather the lies the characters believe or even want to believe. Each chapter begins with a lie that reflects what is occurring in the novel at that time; for example “There’s no need to be afraid” and “I don’t care what they think of me.” This is an interesting way of telling the story as it emphasizes Sarah’s determination to keep going despite what she is subjected to. It also reveals the mental struggles she faces. On the other hand the lies disclose Linda’s conflicting feelings towards the South’s current situation and segregation laws.
Although not a religious novel, each part begins with the title of a Christian hymn. It was the norm for everyone to go to church and, despite the separate churches, was something black and white people did. Sarah and Linda have faith in God yet they both use the bible’s teachings for opposing arguments. The religious aspect also highlights Sarah’s self-hatred and belief that she has fallen into sin.
Unfortunately in today’s world there are still issues with racism and homophobia however after reading <i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> it is evident that these situations have vastly improved, at least in the Western world, since the 1950s. Without children such as Sarah going through these horrible experiences nothing would have changed. There would still be separate schools, slavery and inaccurate opinions about race inequality. America has a lot to thank these brave students who were the first to create mixed race schools.
Overall this is a brilliant book. Well written and realistic, it really draws the reader in to the characters’ stories. Although <i>Lies We Tell Ourselves</i> is a work of fiction, it is historically accurate and can teach a lot about America’s history to young adults today.