Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Little Fires Everywhere in Books
Mar 21, 2019
I was so close to putting this book on my DNF list. The beginning of it was SO slow that I found myself spacing out and then remembering that I was listening to a book.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Obviously, I'm writing a review on it, so of course, I DID NOT put it on my DNF list. It took quite a few chapters (roughly five I think) to really get into the story and by then, I was completely hooked.
There are several stories going on.
The Richardsons rent out a house to a single mother, Mia Warren with her daughter Pearl. The Richardsons are friends with another family who are in the process of adopting a Chinese-American baby, but the process is paused when the mother comes forward wanting her daughter back. The husband, Mr. Richardson, is a lawyer representing the family who want to keep the baby and Mrs. Richardson basically tries to do some investigating of her own, including finding out things about her tenants past and what she has done to cause this drama for her best friends.
The theme of it all centers around a baby. Not just one baby, but that's the whole premise of the story.
One family wants to adopt the Chinese baby they renamed Mirabelle (I'm sorry, but I really don't like that name, or the reason WHY they changed it) and then the mother coming forward wanting her baby back. Now, the mother left her baby at a fire house cause she was not the right state to take care of her. If someone hadn't tipped her off as to where her baby was, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.
I struggled with not yelling at when the woman says the family is stealing her baby. No, they are not. They adopted her when she was left at a fire house. That is a thing that women in her state CAN do. If they cannot afford resources available (cost wise) they can leave their baby with a hospital or a fire house no questions asked. That also means that you give up parental rights. Granted, there should be some sort of grace period, but you cannot say this family stole your baby, because they didn't!
One teenager in the story finds out she's pregnant from her boyfriend and I just cannot fathom her snobby naivete attitude. She swoons over Mirabelle because she's so cute. I'll give you that, babies are cute. But then she starts to fantasize that her and her also teenage boyfriend could work it out and their parents would take care of the baby while at college. Yeah, okay! Reality does hit her hard though, but I won't say how, but it does and I almost feel bad for her, but not quite.
Then there's someone who agreed to be a surrogate and winds up stealing the baby before it was born. Now, technically, that woman did steal a baby. Granted, it's biologically yours, but she agreed, verbally and legally, to be this couple's surrogate. I'm not entirely sure I could do it, cause I really don't want to go through the whole pregnancy, but I can't speak for other women who go into the surrogacy and then start to regret it later. I don't know.
I'm now just babbling. Despite the slow beginning, I can definitely see why this book had as much hype as it did when it was published. It really gets you thinking about different perspectives of motherhood, biological or not. The story is told as if someone was indeed telling a story to a group of people. Almost like when someone is narrating a play and you're watching it as it unfolds before your eyes.
I do look forward to seeing about Celeste Ng's previous novels. This story may be sensitive to some people who have gone through any of these scenarios because I think some things that happen later, could very well get emotional. The story is great, but also keep that in mind if you are at all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Inky Books (3 KP) rated The Queen of the Tearling in Books
Jun 21, 2018
Here’s the book I’ve been looking for! I’ve been waiting and searching and looking for a book that would hold my interest long enough to get through it. While I listened to the book instead of reading it because of the little time I have because of school and work (six classes plus 20 hours a week, why do I do this to myself?) plus trying to train my new puppy, I just haven’t had enough time to sleep, let alone read a book. So listening to books on my 1 hour + commute to and from school and work six days a week was the only option.
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
I’m so glad I found this book because I could borrow it right away from the library. I had seen it, decided a few times not to buy the book because of the books I still haven’t read, so I just jumped at the chance.
So, let us start at the beginning. It was slow to start. I wasn’t connected to any of the characters, I didn’t have much of an interest other than just entertainment. There were a lot of people introduced at once and I had a hard time keeping them straight at first. Over time the characters got sorted out and each had their own personality.
This book was told from a few different perspectives, but for the most part it added important details to the story. It was interesting to see the thoughts of some people other than Kelsea, and it rounded out the story better than if it would have been just her perspective.
However, with the change in perspectives I found that I had a few issues with one character in particular. Javel is a complicated character, and not in the way most people like. His inner monologue has him come off as a strong character, one that doesn’t take crap. His actions and words tell a completely different story. Javel is a weak man. I was very unimpressed with his character and his story until the very, very end. He only had that one redeeming quality, but it paled against everything else about him.
Kelsea is a character I can defiantly stand behind, though there are two things that irked me. This is more about the writing of the book than it is about Kelsea herself, but that fact that she’s plain, not beautiful, was mentioned so often that I got very annoyed. She’s not as beautiful as her mother was, so what? She looked plain standing next to this woman. Yeah, so what’s your point? I get that she is plain but it doesn’t need to be mentioned multiple times in the first chapter and at least once in all the other chapters. The second was that she sees beauty as vanity. Just because a women is beautiful doesn’t mean she’s automatically a rival or that she’s worthless. It annoyed me that every woman was more beautiful than Kelsea could have imagined. Yeah, well get used to it. You’re the queen now, you’re going to be surrounded by beautiful people.
The one other issue I had was with the timing of everything. I can’t get a sense of how long it was from the begging of the book to the end, and it jumps forward weeks ahead with little explanation.
Despite those problems that I have with the book I really enjoyed it. Very rarely do I get to read about queens taking their keep by storm and upturning everything in her wake. Usually Princesses or other random girls are the main character, and this made me happy. It gave me an insight to what her life was like as queen without boring me.
The plot twist was rather predictable, I had it figured out from halfway through the book, but the way it was handled in the end was interesting.
This author isn’t afraid of killing her characters or going into details most would just briefly skim over. It was refreshing. I can’t wait to listen to or read the next book to see what happens from here!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Trust No One
It felt like I’d been waiting an eternity for Greta, and the suspense was killing me. I’d seen plenty of feedback from those who attended TIFF, and the trailer had played before so many films I’d seen in the cinema. The concept had intrigued me from day one, as I find myself very drawn to thrillers such as this one. Being stalked is a very real, very genuine fear, and it’s that sense of realism that makes it so terrifying.
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Find my review on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
We all are, or have once been wallflowers. The shy creatures of the universe, strangled in a problematic world where everything is so confusing and hard. We have all once swam in those deep waters, where the finish line is the act of growing up, and we all coped with it in different ways.
Charlie is struggling with the same things we were, when in high school. The friendships, or lack of them, the crushes, the secret thoughts, the exams, the pressure, the misunderstandings with our parents, our goals, hopes and dreams, our visions of what we will become.
It is an emotional, but very realistic story, about one kid, and all the things he learns while growing up. By learning things the hard way, by listening, by watching things happen to his friends and family, by just being a wallflower.
The author has written this book in a way where Charlie is writing letters to his secret friend, telling him about his daily adventures. I loved this way, because the letters give a sense of confidentiality, of honesty, or pure thoughts with nothing to hide.
Charlie is a shy guy, who has trouble making friends, socialising, and lacks a lot of common sense. To me, this game me vibes of an autistic kid, or an anxious child suffering from PTSD, which hits all the marks, but I don’t know whether or not this was the author’s purpose. It was written in 1998, so I can assume these subjects might have been taboo, as people weren’t as open minded as today.
To me, Charlie was a relatable character. Even though clearly going through a lot more than just a normal kid, in this book, he copes with problems we have all coped. And the part I loved about Charlie the most is – he is honest, so brutally honest, and doesn’t try to hide things he understands or trying to understand. He sees things we don’t tend to see, and he feels things in a way I would want to feel them.
“So, this is my life. And I want you to know that I am both happy and sad and I’m still trying to figure out how that could be.”
He suddenly meets a group of friends, that accept him as he is, and he can be as weird and crazy as he wants, no one bothers. These friendships – my dear reader – are something we all wish for, and some of us are so lucky to have them.
I truly believe that this book is definitely something I would give to my kid to read, or to my small siblings. I wish I had read this 10 years ago, when I would relate more, and when all the high-school topics were relevant. But even now, I can still remember the exact way Charlie felt in some situations, and I wish I had read the book and acted differently on some of mine.
”Charlie, we accept the love we think we deserve.”
Charlie will teach us a lot about high school little traumas, high-school crushes and true love, friendships and betrayals, seeing the family in a different way, and acting on things instead of doing nothing. With Charlie, I went back to high-school, and remembered all the good things and the bad, and I ALMOST shed a few tears for all the memories and times I will never have. Now, I raise a glass, and say cheers for all the good memories and friendships made.
“And I thought about how many people have loved those songs. And how many people got through a lot of bad times because of those songs. And how many people enjoyed good times with those songs. And how much those songs really mean. I think it would be great to have written one of those songs. I bet if I wrote one of them, I would be very proud. I hope the people who wrote those songs are happy. I hope they feel it’s enough. I really do because they’ve made me happy. And I’m only one person.”
Spend a little time, and pick up this book. It is a short and sweet read, and it is a book that everyone should have on their shelves.
We all are, or have once been wallflowers. The shy creatures of the universe, strangled in a problematic world where everything is so confusing and hard. We have all once swam in those deep waters, where the finish line is the act of growing up, and we all coped with it in different ways.
Charlie is struggling with the same things we were, when in high school. The friendships, or lack of them, the crushes, the secret thoughts, the exams, the pressure, the misunderstandings with our parents, our goals, hopes and dreams, our visions of what we will become.
It is an emotional, but very realistic story, about one kid, and all the things he learns while growing up. By learning things the hard way, by listening, by watching things happen to his friends and family, by just being a wallflower.
The author has written this book in a way where Charlie is writing letters to his secret friend, telling him about his daily adventures. I loved this way, because the letters give a sense of confidentiality, of honesty, or pure thoughts with nothing to hide.
Charlie is a shy guy, who has trouble making friends, socialising, and lacks a lot of common sense. To me, this game me vibes of an autistic kid, or an anxious child suffering from PTSD, which hits all the marks, but I don’t know whether or not this was the author’s purpose. It was written in 1998, so I can assume these subjects might have been taboo, as people weren’t as open minded as today.
To me, Charlie was a relatable character. Even though clearly going through a lot more than just a normal kid, in this book, he copes with problems we have all coped. And the part I loved about Charlie the most is – he is honest, so brutally honest, and doesn’t try to hide things he understands or trying to understand. He sees things we don’t tend to see, and he feels things in a way I would want to feel them.
“So, this is my life. And I want you to know that I am both happy and sad and I’m still trying to figure out how that could be.”
He suddenly meets a group of friends, that accept him as he is, and he can be as weird and crazy as he wants, no one bothers. These friendships – my dear reader – are something we all wish for, and some of us are so lucky to have them.
I truly believe that this book is definitely something I would give to my kid to read, or to my small siblings. I wish I had read this 10 years ago, when I would relate more, and when all the high-school topics were relevant. But even now, I can still remember the exact way Charlie felt in some situations, and I wish I had read the book and acted differently on some of mine.
”Charlie, we accept the love we think we deserve.”
Charlie will teach us a lot about high school little traumas, high-school crushes and true love, friendships and betrayals, seeing the family in a different way, and acting on things instead of doing nothing. With Charlie, I went back to high-school, and remembered all the good things and the bad, and I ALMOST shed a few tears for all the memories and times I will never have. Now, I raise a glass, and say cheers for all the good memories and friendships made.
“And I thought about how many people have loved those songs. And how many people got through a lot of bad times because of those songs. And how many people enjoyed good times with those songs. And how much those songs really mean. I think it would be great to have written one of those songs. I bet if I wrote one of them, I would be very proud. I hope the people who wrote those songs are happy. I hope they feel it’s enough. I really do because they’ve made me happy. And I’m only one person.”
Spend a little time, and pick up this book. It is a short and sweet read, and it is a book that everyone should have on their shelves.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Little Monsters (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Delivers What Is Expected
Like eating comfort food on a cold, wintery day, sitting down to catch the latest Scorsese/DeNiro mob movie filled me with a warmth that was satisfying for it's familiarity. It is a film landscape mined by professionals who know this genre of movie well.
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
remember thinking, after reading the first couple of chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey two years ago, “Is this guy a vampire?” E.L. James’ description of Christian Grey brought to mind Edward of the Twilight series and the heroine, Anastasia Steele’s clumsy entrance into Grey’s office reminded me of Bella. I was so certain I would find out Grey was a vampire in the following chapters.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
I Like Books - 37 Picture Books for Kids in 1 App
Education and Book
App
"WOW... 37 stunning picture books for kids in one app. This is a MUST have for every parent with...