Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Leprechaun Returns (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Lila is the daughter or Tory (from the original) she is moving back to the same house in the vents of the original to be part of a college sorority, she is clearly the outsider of the group desperate to make new friends after a lifetime of looking after her mother. She learns to start believing what her mother did and proves to be resourceful throughout the film. Katie is the slutty of the friends, Rose is the one trying to make a change and Meredith is the drunk one, while they are meant to be portrayed as smart, they are painfully generic and dumb throughout. The Leprechaun has returned looking for his gold and this time he isn’t going to be a friendly, trying to get his power back. He uses rhymes to try and scare the characters and new powers to make object move to kill.
Performances – Taylor Spreitler does every she can in the leading role, trying to step into the shoes of Jennifer Aniston isn’t going to be easy for anyone, Pepi Sonuga, Sai Bennett and Emily Reid are the basic supporting performances, playing confusing characters. Linden Porco does well as the leprechaun being evil enough.
Story – The story picks up 25 years after the original film where we follow a new group of students that head to the house from the original only to find themselves being haunted by the leprechaun who just wants his gold back. The idea that we are taught to forget any of the sequels is a good thing and arguable the only good thing about the story, the rest just makes the characters seem confusing, with the story wanting to say these girls are smart with what they are doing, but as soon as the horror starts they just become screaming messes. It does keep the tone of a slasher story though it just never captures the tone of the first film enough.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy comes from the painfully rhymes that the leprechaun gives, they are very pun heavy which will often make your eyes roll. The horror does come from the kills which are bloody and one is in fact an original one too.
Settings – The film is set in the same house as the original film, it needs to be rebuilt so people could live there, it shows the evil hasn’t left this place after 25-years.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are easily one of the better parts because we get the unique looking kills that don’t shy away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – Solar panel
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The characters being confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is a disappoint horror sequel reboot, it is filled with too many puns and tries to be self-aware of everything going on.
Overall: Leprechaun is better off dead.
Performances – Taylor Spreitler does every she can in the leading role, trying to step into the shoes of Jennifer Aniston isn’t going to be easy for anyone, Pepi Sonuga, Sai Bennett and Emily Reid are the basic supporting performances, playing confusing characters. Linden Porco does well as the leprechaun being evil enough.
Story – The story picks up 25 years after the original film where we follow a new group of students that head to the house from the original only to find themselves being haunted by the leprechaun who just wants his gold back. The idea that we are taught to forget any of the sequels is a good thing and arguable the only good thing about the story, the rest just makes the characters seem confusing, with the story wanting to say these girls are smart with what they are doing, but as soon as the horror starts they just become screaming messes. It does keep the tone of a slasher story though it just never captures the tone of the first film enough.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy comes from the painfully rhymes that the leprechaun gives, they are very pun heavy which will often make your eyes roll. The horror does come from the kills which are bloody and one is in fact an original one too.
Settings – The film is set in the same house as the original film, it needs to be rebuilt so people could live there, it shows the evil hasn’t left this place after 25-years.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are easily one of the better parts because we get the unique looking kills that don’t shy away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – Solar panel
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The characters being confusing.
Final Thoughts – This is a disappoint horror sequel reboot, it is filled with too many puns and tries to be self-aware of everything going on.
Overall: Leprechaun is better off dead.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As a fan of the Pride and Prejudice book by Jane Austen, I thought it was all kinds of wrong when I came across the parody novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, that essentially Austen’s classic novel with elements of modern zombie fiction. Mainly because I’m not a fan of horror movies. So as we approached the theater where we were screening Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I told my husband, “I really don’t want to watch this. I hate zombies.” He just laughed. “You hate zombies, but you watch Walking Dead. Just pretend it’s an episode of Walking dead. Just set near the Victorian era.” I admit, I do watch the Walking Dead but it’s the most stressful hour of television for me, and there are commercial breaks. This movie has a running time for this move was almost 2 hrs with no commercials.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Full disclosure: I am a huge Family Guy fan. I’ve been watching since day one, and even own every volume and special edition DVD released. Okay, now that we have that out of the way.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Fall of the Red Baron: World War I Aerial Tactics and the Death of Richthofen
Book
Fighter pilot Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron) lacked innate aerobatic ability. As a tyro, he...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wordslingers: The Story of Self-Publishing (2021) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
They say that everyone has a book in them. I guess the key question is whether anyone else wants to read it. Such is the subject of this new documentary from A. Brooks Bennett. As a publisher says at one point “Writing a book is a creative act; publishing a book is a business”.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
The democratization of publishing
The internet has brought many advantages to modern life, but perhaps one of the most interesting is the democratization of publishing. No longer is control in the hands of publishing houses, who might glance at and immediately dismiss new ideas in literature. It’s worth remembering that 12 publishing houses turned down J.K. Rowling’s draft for Harry Potter! Now anyone can be creative in writing and self-publish on the web. My own wife – Sue Mann – did just this, self-publishing the WW1 poems and reminiscences of two of her great-uncles. (It’s available from all good bookshops… oh, no…. actually just from here!) Are the poems artistically any good? I have no idea! Will it sell many copies? Clearly not! Was it a personal goal achieved in honouring their memory? Absolutely! Different people want different things from the medium.
Very ‘American’.
It’s probably down to the pioneer spirit, but as a generalisation Americans seem far more ambitious than Brits: or at least, more OPENLY ambitious. Whereas most Brits will quietly get on with building their careers, some Americans will go hell-for-leather towards their vision of “success” no matter the cost: no guts; no glory; and be noisy about it!
But for every J.K. Rowling or Bill Bryson there are several thousand writers who have ‘failed to launch’.
Here we follow two budding authors – one from California; the other from North Carolina – self-publishing their work and seeking sales.
One – Giles A (“Andy”) Anderson – has self-published a seemingly disturbing work called “Vidu” – the first of what he hopes will be a five-part series. He first talks from a ghoulish bookstore, speaking psycho-babble with the requisite hyperbole of an ‘artiste’. (It suggests how the books might read… but perhaps that’s misjudging). It comes then as a surprise when we find he doesn’t live alone in a coffin playing video games on his own, but has a lovely wife and two young and perfectly normal children. So his book is an “off the beaten track kinda book”, but the man seems well-grounded and following his dream in bite-size pieces.
Moral: Avoid the Travel Books
As is often the case though, the documentary homes in on, and spends most of its time with, the other author – Adam Shephard. Shephard is struggling to launch as an author and also – in parallel – wrestling with the Green Card process for his supportive and vivacious Croatian wife Ivana. The problem is that Shephard has written an extended travel blog: ten-a-penny on sites like WordPress.
I read a Forbes article last year that reported that – astonishingly – in a survey 11% of American respondents had never travelled outside of their home state and 40% had never left the country. For such a well-heeled country, the US is incredibly insular. So Shephard’s vision is to encourage youngsters to step outside of their comfort zone and jump on that plane to Guatemala. It’s a fine objective. But does anyone want to listen? And – crucially – is the book any good and commercial enough? As the famous ‘founder of self-publishing’, the late Dan Poynter (to who the film is dedicated) says “You can’t make any money off a travel book”.
The film never goes as far as having either of the featured books critically reviewed: that might have added some extra spice to the story (and possibly provoked some painful reactions). But the piles of unopened boxes in Adam’s clinically white storage facility rather speaks for itself. Since Shephard never seems to do anything by halves, the boxes are piled high and thus the fall from grace is hard, long…. and absolutely riveting. (Ivana’s support and love in such difficult circumstances is commendable: he is a truly blessed man).
Jaw-dropping Walmart scene
At least at the start of the film, Adam’s self-belief and confidence in himself is infectious. The peak of his bravado, and a jaw-dropping highpoint in the movie for me, was a scene filmed in Walmart. Shephard, in a case of “reverse shoplifting”, sneaks HIS books onto the bookshelves of Walmart. What happens when they then try to buy one? It’s a real eye-opener and worth watching the documentary for in its own right.
It’s an interesting legal position: if Walmart were to be upset about this scene, what on earth could they charge them with!? Littering?
Highs and lows.
Shephard seems to have talent as a speaker, and it struck me that he would be genuinely suited to a job in sales. In the movie we see him performing self-confidence-building pitches to young people (and, boy, could we sometimes use that in the UK post-Brexit). A few books sold. But another event barely breaking even. The pattern becomes familiar and, in a way, rather tragic.
There are unexpected highs and lows for Adam and Ivana along the way though, unrelated to the publishing story, and the filmmaker skillfully weaves them into the narrative to good effect.
Thought-provoking.
I watched this on a whim and thought I’d probably switch off after 10 minutes. Documentaries normally are not my thing! But no. It had me gripped to see how things would turn out – like watching a slow-motion car crash! The journey was well-worth the ride: a real page-turner you might say.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The most fun you can have with Jack Black’s penis.
In 1995, Joe Johnston (“The Rocketeer”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) directed “Jumanji” – a quirky, fantastical and dark film starring the late, great Robin Williams that got a rough critical reception at the time of release, but was embraced by the public and has gone on to be a modern classic. So when it was announced that a sequel was in the works 22 years later, my first reaction was “Oh no… is nothing sacred?”. It’s fair to say that I went into this flick with extremely low expectations.
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.