Search
Search results
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Swallow (2019) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020
Are you a faker or a maker
Swallow is a film about striving for perfection, the effects of childhood trauma/abusive relationships and the struggle of tying to achieve inner peace/happiness. While its no means a pleasant watch Swallow is both breathtakingly stunning and beautifully depressing at the same time. That and also the shocking realisation that its also completley groundeded in reality too as it deals with such unusual yet very real circumstances make it truly unique and a heartbreaking story. We begin with seeing Hunter tidying her stunningly beautiful home seeming like shes living the life most of us could only dream about, but much like this years invisible man we soon see the reality is shes trapped and a victim of a somwhat abusive relationship buy a man clearly influenced to much by his money and parents. See he's very well off but with this comes a down side. Hes arrogant, patronising, selfish and neglectful treating his beautiful wife as a mere accessory to make him look better to his friends, parents and buisness partners. To him shes just another flashy possession that should be seen and not heard, an accomplishment and when the aren't in public he ignores her, constantly puts her down, underminds her, patronizes her, takes away all her decision making and cares more about how he looks. In public he makes here feel small/useless, degrades her and embarsess her to make himself feel better as he strives for his own perfect life. Thus Hunter develops this addiction and fascination of swallowing items. Interestingly the swallowing starts off kid of fun and visually the items seduce hunter in an almost erotic and playful manner but as the film progresses it becomes a more agressive tendency where the objects change to become more visually aggressive/harmful and even call out and taunt hunter literally begging for her to take them into her mouth. At first the motive behind the swallowing seems innocent enough and a somewhat harmless way of dealing with the neglect from her husband as she still seems extreamly happy and grateful for the life she lives. But its this naivety and innocence that makes swallowing so easy for hunter as shes almost lured in and welcomed by the warm, blissfull, elegance the objects bring. Its like she feels relaxed, clam and embraced by the almost erotic, hypnotic, sensual and orgasmic sensations swallowing brings her. This is all represented by lovely (yet cold) whites and light blue colours littering the early scenes frequently, then theres a transition into warm colours as she starts to feel more satisfied (feeling like she has found happines momentarily and in her own way of achieving something/challenging herself so she feels she has value and worth). As things progress however harsher items are digested and the colours instantly turn to harsh reds symbolizing temptation, punishment, danger and lust making our perception of why she does this shift to thinking its being done as a punishment or for attention and to feel sexualy violated. For a while it seems that this is all the film has to offer but as the story unfolds constant plot twists creep up to delight and shock with the film even switching genres at times to dabble in more horror esq moments that wouldnt go a miss in a film like suspiria. I really dont want to spoil to much but past trauma plays a big part here and how the films character progression portrays what it feels like to be in this kind of harsh mental state is distressing and frequently upsetting as we learn to understand the condition and see how quick people are to dismiss it as a selfish act. See everyone has addictions and hidden secrets some far worse than others and we see how these addictions/traits hinder other characters on thier path to perfection too and also how much harder it is to reach happiness knowing you have flaws. With all its twists and turns swallow had me absolutely fixated on the screen constantly and every character became a puzzle i had to try and unlock if i wanted to figure out thier true nature and motives. I too had become addicted and Swallow is now one of my favorite movies of this year whithout question. From its stunning cinematography, its real/raw stressful and disturbing themes to its sheer beauty and innocence swallow when it endend left me trully feeling like id witnessed something rewarding and satisfying that served a true purpose with what it had to say. Yet I found my mind was still buzzing for the need to delve deeper into it looking for more to ingest and already craving to re watch it. Most people wont like this movie but only because they might be missing the point. Its about the strength and power of secrets, overcomming trauma, selfworth and the progression to finding true happiness in yourself and its absolutely Fantastic.
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Her Wicked Ways in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Historical
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Word Count: 101, 790
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.62/ 5 stars
My rating: 4/ 5 stars
This book has a slightly shaky start, like most romance novels do, but it pulls me in pretty quickly. It starts off with Montgomery “Fox” Foxcroft committing highway robbery to save an orphanage. Yeah, starts off like your run-of-the-mill soap opera.
The job is supposed to be simple for Fox. Rob a corrupt MP to support the orphanage he runs. Unbeknownst to him, this MP is carrying something even more precious than money. He’s transporting a disgraced heiress named Miranda Sinclair. Miranda’s a beautiful woman who distracts Fox so much that he forgets he’s committing a crime to save some kids and ends up making out with her. Not his finest moment. But it does give him an idea. To seduce Miranda and marry her for her money. But when she starts volunteering at his orphanage, he realizes that she’s not just a spoiled heiress, but also likeable, capable, and someone that he might even grown to love.
This story is fantastic! I re-read it when I realized I hadn’t written a review for it, and it was good even the second time around. Both Miranda and Fox are excellent and the chemistry between them is spot-on.
Miranda comes off as entitled at first, and she is, but she grows out of that pretty quickly. In truth, she’s a very strong person who regularly rebels against the restricting rules of London Society, because come on, why would anyone want to live by those rules? Despite everyone calling her incompetent and useless, she’s smart and very capable. She steals a kiss out of Fox the first time she meets him, and she raises more money for the orphanage in one night than Fox managed to raise in an entire year.
Where I shall stay when we get there. Is this Stratham’s house adequate?” (Her brother asked)
“Yes, more than. You’ll be quite comfortable. Are you sure you’re allowed to stay there?”
“Ah, sweet sister, when will you realize the rules are not the same for you and me?”
But Miranda knew all too well. Perhaps that was why she always broke them.
The only irritating thing about Miranda is that she bends easily to her parents’ will. And while I get that they are her parents, it frustrates me to no end that she complied so quickly, even when it hurt Fox and she didn’t agree with them to begin with. I also hate that she didn’t figure out that Fox was the highwayman. Sure, she might not associate a random, masked stranger with the impoverished owner of an orphanage right away. But then she meets the highwayman again… and then sees Fox again…. she knows she feels the same lust with both of them, and she still doesn’t figure it out? Oh please, she’s smarter than that.
Fox is incredibly lovable, despite his ridiculous jealousy over just about every man that Miranda comes in contact with. He gets jealous over Miranda’s former lover who’s so unimportant he doesn’t even turn up, and he gets jealous over Stratham. He even gets jealous over one of his charges when Miranda compliments the boy’s new haircut. Possessive much?
However, I do like how wonderfully insecure Fox is. Despite being confident in most areas of his life, and refusing to think people in higher class were better than him, Fox is constantly unsure around Miranda. He thinks she’s totally out of his league, even at the end.
“That you would give yourself to me is incredibly humbling.”
A twinge of embarrassment heated her face. “Why?”
He smiled. “Because you’re Miranda. A goddess to my mere mortality. I am a beast beside you.”
Damn. Montgomery Foxcroft sure knows how to woo a woman.
And he is so hopelessly in love with her. Even when he was desperate for money, he wasn’t willing to force Miranda to marry him by compromising her because he didn’t want her to hate him. And even though his original intention in courting her was to get her money, he started appreciating her for much more. Unlike her parents, he saw her for the brilliant woman she was and was quick to defend her to anyone who said otherwise.
Love.
The word drove a knife clean through his heart. Did he love her? He didn’t know, but he wanted her for more than money. More than desire. He wanted her here. With him. With all of them. He’d never seen the children so happy. So light. He’d never felt so happy or light—and that said a lot given his cursed financial woes.
He also doesn’t ever want her change. Unlike everyone else in this story, including her brother, the only immediate family member she has who is remotely nice to her, Fox doesn’t think she has to change, and doesn’t even want her to.
“You’re staring at me like I’m food again.” His words heightened her arousal and further emboldened her.
She feasted on his male beauty. “I’ve never seen anything as delicious as you.”
“Christ, Miranda. Ladies don’t talk like that.”
She traced her fingers around his nipples and watched them tighten. Her own hardened in response. “You don’t like it?”
He swallowed audibly. “I like it fine.”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Mirror, Mirror in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I’m honest I initially thought the tagline to this Snow White twisted tale novel was a massive plot spoiler but, when you are 300 pages into a book and no-one has eaten a poisoned apple, it may be the ideal opportunity to admit you were wrong. This book is not that simple!
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Catherine in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
First of all, let me say that while I know a lot of you love Atlus games as much as I do, Catherine is not a typical video game. In fact, it is a sliding block puzzle game with a great story woven in. If you're not big on puzzle games, Catherine may not be the video game for you. However, if you genuinely enjoy challenging puzzles and are a puzzle game addict like myself, Catherine definitely gives you your money's worth.
Catherine is much more than a puzzle game however. The story is definitely what brings everything together. It addresses adult situations, things that people go through or suffer such as, fear of commitment, infidelity, and about how some people are childish and won't take responsibility for their actions. It's a unique title and simply an adult video game because it involves adult situations and the issues we have as we get older.
The story centers around Vincent Brooks who has a girlfriend by the name of Katherine. They're both in their early thirties and Katherine's biological clock is ticking which she hints at to him by telling him her mother has asked where the relationship is going. Vincent isn't sure he's ready for that level of commitment yet and says as much to his buddies he hangs out with at the local bar.
One night while hanging out at the bar mulling over a sliding block nightmare he had the night before, he runs into a beautiful blonde bombshell by the name of Catherine. Apparently after blacking out, he wakes up after another nightmare to find that she has spent the night. Of course, Vincent freaks out completely. Now, Vincent has to make a choice between lust and love, have good times with Catherine or finally make a commitment to Katherine.
Vincent's nightmares continue and even worse, people actually seem to be dying in them.Healthy men in their twenties and thirties are found dead in their beds and there seems to be no reason for it. A rumor goes around that it is a woman cursing all these men for being unfaithful. Is the rumor true? Vincent has to find out, climbing for his life one nightmare at a time.
Vincent Brooks In His Nightmare
Vincent's nightmares are the heart and soul of the puzzle sections. Every night, he wakes up surrounded by sheep, with horns growing out of his head and a voice taunting him to come up. There are items along the way that help you with the puzzles, but many obstacles as well involving sheep that are trying to climb also as the world crumbles behind them. You have a reason to climb, survival and the inner demons Vincent is struggling with. If you don't climb, you die. One example of this is, there's a giant monster version of Vincent's girlfriend Katherine, trying to grab him and smash the heck out of him. If Vincent's not quick enough to climb all those blocks to the top, he will surely die.
Every night, there's a different puzzle with each nightmare and depending on how quickly you get to the top and how many points you get, you can win gold, silver, or bronze trophies. The complexity of the puzzles is very interesting and the story is well written and captures your attention perfectly. It sounds silly, but you actually feel a sense of accomplishment when you have figured out a rather difficult puzzle.
Solve The Puzzle Or Die Trying
This brings up the next point. Some of the puzzles in Catherine will make you want to punch every living thing in your path. The difficulty level is excruciatingly high on a variety of them. There's no shame in playing a game on the Easy level. I know I will try a game on Easy first, to get a feel for the controls, to see how well the game plays, and to have a chance to genuinely enjoy the story that is being told. Then I will play again working on all the achievements and trophies, and improving my game scores. This is what I did with Catherine and some of those puzzles made me want to punch whoever designed it right in the face. A challenge is all well and good and definitely in a puzzle game, but when the game is on the Easy setting and it's still making you weep bitter tears of defeat, that is a big problem. Don't believe me? Apparently the difficulty level was such a destroyer of worlds, that the Japanese gamers complained about it. Frankly, that said quite a lot to me about how high Atlus raised the bar on these puzzles. The complaints were so many, that Atlus promised to put a patch in that would make the game much less difficult on Easy. I do understand their reasoning that they wanted the game to be challenging, so that players could reap huge rewards when they solved a puzzle, but the Easy setting in a game should be just that, easy and not throw people into the deep end with a sink or swim attitude. That's what the Hard and Nightmare settings are for.
However, there is hope! There is a secret trick to get to a Very Easy mode. It's a secret that Atlus put in to make the game a cake walk for players. When you access the main menu of the game, highlight Golden Playhouse and hold the back or select button for a few seconds. The screen will flash with a prompt telling you Very Easy mode has been activated. From there, the puzzles are much easier, and you can actually enjoy the story without those resentful feelings and frustration. It is a nice touch, and I give kudos to Atlus for caring enough about fans of their games to put it in there, because they do want people to enjoy the game.
Overalll, the game is great. The story is well thought out and acted out well with a great voice cast. There are also interesting characters that Vincent meets in the bar and can talk to, even help them with their issues. There is also a fun mini game in Catherine, called Rapunzel that is a sliding block puzzle game also that gives you pretty good rewards when you beat all the levels, along with opportunities to unlock music from various Atlus games and the Catherine game to play on the jukebox in the bar.
I have always loved the artwork in Atlus video games and Catherine is no exception. Right down to the animated short cut scenes, everything is colorful, seamless, and you really appreciate how everything ties together. The music, the voice cast, and the game play all mesh into a fantastic video game. Catherine is definitely a game worth having in any gaming enthusiast's collection and absolutely worth playing more than once.
Catherine is much more than a puzzle game however. The story is definitely what brings everything together. It addresses adult situations, things that people go through or suffer such as, fear of commitment, infidelity, and about how some people are childish and won't take responsibility for their actions. It's a unique title and simply an adult video game because it involves adult situations and the issues we have as we get older.
The story centers around Vincent Brooks who has a girlfriend by the name of Katherine. They're both in their early thirties and Katherine's biological clock is ticking which she hints at to him by telling him her mother has asked where the relationship is going. Vincent isn't sure he's ready for that level of commitment yet and says as much to his buddies he hangs out with at the local bar.
One night while hanging out at the bar mulling over a sliding block nightmare he had the night before, he runs into a beautiful blonde bombshell by the name of Catherine. Apparently after blacking out, he wakes up after another nightmare to find that she has spent the night. Of course, Vincent freaks out completely. Now, Vincent has to make a choice between lust and love, have good times with Catherine or finally make a commitment to Katherine.
Vincent's nightmares continue and even worse, people actually seem to be dying in them.Healthy men in their twenties and thirties are found dead in their beds and there seems to be no reason for it. A rumor goes around that it is a woman cursing all these men for being unfaithful. Is the rumor true? Vincent has to find out, climbing for his life one nightmare at a time.
Vincent Brooks In His Nightmare
Vincent's nightmares are the heart and soul of the puzzle sections. Every night, he wakes up surrounded by sheep, with horns growing out of his head and a voice taunting him to come up. There are items along the way that help you with the puzzles, but many obstacles as well involving sheep that are trying to climb also as the world crumbles behind them. You have a reason to climb, survival and the inner demons Vincent is struggling with. If you don't climb, you die. One example of this is, there's a giant monster version of Vincent's girlfriend Katherine, trying to grab him and smash the heck out of him. If Vincent's not quick enough to climb all those blocks to the top, he will surely die.
Every night, there's a different puzzle with each nightmare and depending on how quickly you get to the top and how many points you get, you can win gold, silver, or bronze trophies. The complexity of the puzzles is very interesting and the story is well written and captures your attention perfectly. It sounds silly, but you actually feel a sense of accomplishment when you have figured out a rather difficult puzzle.
Solve The Puzzle Or Die Trying
This brings up the next point. Some of the puzzles in Catherine will make you want to punch every living thing in your path. The difficulty level is excruciatingly high on a variety of them. There's no shame in playing a game on the Easy level. I know I will try a game on Easy first, to get a feel for the controls, to see how well the game plays, and to have a chance to genuinely enjoy the story that is being told. Then I will play again working on all the achievements and trophies, and improving my game scores. This is what I did with Catherine and some of those puzzles made me want to punch whoever designed it right in the face. A challenge is all well and good and definitely in a puzzle game, but when the game is on the Easy setting and it's still making you weep bitter tears of defeat, that is a big problem. Don't believe me? Apparently the difficulty level was such a destroyer of worlds, that the Japanese gamers complained about it. Frankly, that said quite a lot to me about how high Atlus raised the bar on these puzzles. The complaints were so many, that Atlus promised to put a patch in that would make the game much less difficult on Easy. I do understand their reasoning that they wanted the game to be challenging, so that players could reap huge rewards when they solved a puzzle, but the Easy setting in a game should be just that, easy and not throw people into the deep end with a sink or swim attitude. That's what the Hard and Nightmare settings are for.
However, there is hope! There is a secret trick to get to a Very Easy mode. It's a secret that Atlus put in to make the game a cake walk for players. When you access the main menu of the game, highlight Golden Playhouse and hold the back or select button for a few seconds. The screen will flash with a prompt telling you Very Easy mode has been activated. From there, the puzzles are much easier, and you can actually enjoy the story without those resentful feelings and frustration. It is a nice touch, and I give kudos to Atlus for caring enough about fans of their games to put it in there, because they do want people to enjoy the game.
Overalll, the game is great. The story is well thought out and acted out well with a great voice cast. There are also interesting characters that Vincent meets in the bar and can talk to, even help them with their issues. There is also a fun mini game in Catherine, called Rapunzel that is a sliding block puzzle game also that gives you pretty good rewards when you beat all the levels, along with opportunities to unlock music from various Atlus games and the Catherine game to play on the jukebox in the bar.
I have always loved the artwork in Atlus video games and Catherine is no exception. Right down to the animated short cut scenes, everything is colorful, seamless, and you really appreciate how everything ties together. The music, the voice cast, and the game play all mesh into a fantastic video game. Catherine is definitely a game worth having in any gaming enthusiast's collection and absolutely worth playing more than once.