Search
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Nowhere Girls in Books
Dec 24, 2017
powerful (2 more)
timely
honest
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Grace and her family have just moved to a new town after her Baptist preacher mother has a spiritual experience and their small Kentucky town decides she is far too progressive for their community. Grace is shunned and the family basically flees for more open-minded pastures. Erin is a beautiful girl who loves science and Star Trek: The Next Generation. She also has Asperger's and a secret. Rosina is a lesbian struggling to be herself within the confines of her conservative Mexican family. She dreams only of playing music and escaping her town, instead of taking care of her gaggle of cousins and working in her uncle's restaurant. Grace soon learns that the former occupant of her new house was Lucy Moynihan, who accused some popular boys of rape. Lucy wasn't believed, had a breakdown, and left town. While she's never been one to stand up for anything before, this angers Grace in a way she cannot fully describe. Erin and Rosina empathize with Lucy's situation, too. So the three find themselves an unlikely trio, and they do something even more unlikely: they form a secret group, made up entirely of girls, to protest the horrible culture at their school--a culture that condones things like rape and mistreatment of women. The group quickly takes off and the three girls realize that the group--and this cause--is far bigger than themselves.
This is an incredibly timely, wonderfully descriptive, and well-written novel that encapsulates the struggle felt by teenagers and young women in dealing with sexual assault, rape, and violence against women. There's a definite trigger for sexual assault/rape, so do avoid this novel if that is an issue for you. This book can certainly be painful to read, but it's an amazing read and incredibly powerful, as well.
The theme of boys and men getting away with horrible things in their towns seems so popular of late in books I've been reading. That could mean that The Nowhere Girls is repetitive, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful additional to this topic, which is a discouraging one and quite representative of how things are in our current society.
For me, the strength of this novel came with its characters and its brutal honesty. I really loved the three main characters, especially Erin, and just felt for all three girls. This is the first book I've read by Amy Reed (but won't be the last), and I was so impressed by her writing. The girls pop off the pages. The novel is written from the perspective of Grace, Erin, and Rosina, as well as Lucy and "Us"--a section that depicts the state of things from various high school females. Reed gives us a fairly diverse cast, including Rosina, whose family are Mexican immigrants; a character with autism in Erin; and several LGBTQIA characters. And, of course, it's wonderful to have so many female perspectives represented. We also get a few glimpses of some of the boys via excerpts from a despicable blog, which is quite effective in its own right.
As I said, so much of the strength of this book comes from its honesty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the female teens are dealing with some very harsh realities in relation to sex, and it makes it clear how much they truly have to deal with. There are some extremely powerful moments in this novel (there's a chapter that occurs with some of the girls in a model home, and it's just wow. Amazing). It lays so much bare about what high school girls truly must go through. I found the brutal and realistic look at women and sex refreshing--albeit terrifying and heartbreaking. Rape, sexual assault, the power of sex, the way these women use sex to relate to each other and to boys--it's all there, and the result is heartbreaking, sad, powerful, and yes, sometimes hopeful.
A few times, I wasn't sure if I always believed how the authority figures dealt with the girls and their group, but, truly, it's probably a realistic portrayal of small town America. The ending was also a little neat, but still worked in the context of this novel. I kept thinking how much I'd like my daughters to read this book when they're older, because there is so much here: so many talking points and truths and so many wonderful and strong women among all the sadness.
In the end, this was a slow-moving book at times, but it was so well-written and a very powerful read. The characters are so strong, and you truly become part of their world as you read. I feel as if this is a must-read for female teens, and it's just so timely now in our culture, where the news brings more sexual assault talk each evening. There is something about this book that will leave you with hope, despite the horrors, and that's so important right now. Definitely a worthwhile read.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Mystic Vale in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
The Land needs you, Druid! It is plagued, barren, in need of revitalization and only your Circle can cure it and bring vivacity back to our home. Earn as many VP crystal shards as you can to defeat the other Druids and re-beautify us!
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/
DISCLAIMER: This review focuses on vanilla Mystic Vale. We have most of the expansions in our collections, and we may do reviews on them and how they change the experience. If we do, we will either update this review or link to the expansion reviews here. -T
Okay, so the last part of my intro doesn’t quite make thematic sense, but this is a competitive game. A really good competitive game where there really isn’t a ton of direct player interaction, so if you enjoy merely messing with your opponents’ plans and just seeming like an annoying bee sting, read on.
I will also get this out of the way early: this is my first Card Crafting Game and the first of its type (that I know of, anyway). The concept is explained in the next paragraph. There are now others, but this is the grand-daddy. I was skeptical at first and was late to hop on the bandwagon here, but when I did I was really blown away. You have your own deck of cards that is exactly the same as your opponents’ decks, with a different colored back. Throw those cards into the provided clear sleeves, set up the other decks from which you will be purchasing upgrade cards, and you are setup.
The game mechanics are familiar, where you are pushing your luck to flip over cards from your deck to create a hand of cards… or bust and do nothing. Using the symbols on these cards allows you purchase cards from the current offering grid. Once you have purchased your new card(s) you must put them in the sleeves along with your starting cards to improve those starting cards! How can we do this, you ask? THE CARDS ARE SEE-THROUGH PLASTIC CARDS. Some starting cards are completely blank, and so adding to them drastically increases their value. This is a twist on the old deck building mechanic where you are no longer adding cards to make your deck more plentiful, but you are improving the sleeved cards you already have.
The art on the cards you are purchasing from the offer are printed in a way where information is split into three areas – top, middle, and bottom. So, you may have a starting card that gives you one icon worth of purchasing power with art on the top section. You grab a card to add to that another purchasing icon, with art on the bottom section. Now the next time this card comes up in your hand it is worth two icons to spend on further cards. Simple, right? Well, there are several types of purchasing icons (stars, leaves, paws, etc), not just one general icon. Some cards will furnish you with the other icons that you can use to purchase Vale cards (see photo below). These are powerful cards that can provide VPs and other actions to propel you to victory.
There’s so much in this game, even with just the vanilla base cards, that I just cannot explain everything here. So I won’t. If you have questions, do let me know. Speaking of the base game, here’s what you get.
A box. The box is decent size and will accommodate an expansion. I believe it is supposed to handle more than one, but in my experience, I wasn’t able to fit a whole lot in there with the provided insert. So I made my own. The VP tokens are great. The plastic cards are really great, but they have a strange (or familiar if you have played games like Gloom) smell to them that takes a bit to get used to smelling. Also, the cards come with a protective cling-film layer that will eventually start peeling off. These are used to facilitate printing on the plastic, and can be kept on or taken off – your preference. I’ll tell you what though. The art on this game is absolutely stellar. I really haven’t seen much better on a game, so I definitely am keeping my protective film on mine. The sleeves are decent, but I have had a few blowouts from usage. The game comes with more sleeves than is necessary, so I am hoping I never run out.
This review is long enough, but I wanted the reader to know that I hold this game in VERY high regard. It is well entrenched in my Top 10 list, and I don’t see it moving downward any time soon. The expansions definitely add a ton of replayability to it, but even as is, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a revivified 21 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/mystic-vale-review/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Never Forgotten (Never Forgotten, #1) in Books
Aug 23, 2018
''All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another. - Anatole France''
How can one day go so very wrong? One minute Meara Quinn is making plans for how she will spend the Summer before her senior year and the next she's finding out that her mother's cancer has returned and they are moving away from the only home she's ever known.
Now she is in a new country, taking care of her mother, living with grandparents she never met, meeting new friends at school and a guy she really likes and having weird visions of a father who was absent her entire life. There is a secret of who Meara is, and everyone seems to know this except her.
Meara is determined to find out the secrets that will change her life forever.
Review:
The beginning of this book in unbelievably good! Amazing intro and perfect character development. I loved how you could feel with Meara all the time, and go through with her while she leans about her mum's sickness and the movement to another country. It is very realistically described, and we manage to see this all through the eyes of a troubled teenager. And the descriptions of the scenes? Ahhh, just see for yourselves:
''The room was a deep purple and accented with an eclectic blend of antiques and comfortable furnishings. It was the kind of room that made a person long to grab a book and cozy into the oversized couch for a several hours.''
Thought, sometimes, there would be things that didn't make sense to me:
''The guy who delivered the pizza forgot plates and napkins. So, we just opened the box and dug in.''
Which delivery place on Earth, for God's sake, delivers plates and napkins? Is this an American thing? If I order pizza, I expect to dig into it with all my fingers, get really messy, and then lick them in the end. Just saying…
There were many twists and turns, mostly little ones in this first book, but the middle of the book gets really slow paced. For a moment, I thought this might be an unpleasant read, but it turned out to just be a calm before the storm, where the biggest twist happens right before the end, and it leaves us wanting more - therefore, the second book. Nicely done, Kelly Risser, nicely done!
Meara is an amazing girl, and we follow her story. She finds out her mum's cancer is back again, and they have to move from USA to Canada. For a teenage girl, that is a huge change. I loved the way she coped with it, even though, at the beginning she made me quite agitated - her mum is dying, and her thought are - life is unfair, why do I have to move to another country, and change schools and lose my friends? It made me incredibly angry, but as much as I don't want to admit it, those are the exact thoughts a teen would have in such moments. We don’t really tend to think about how our parents feel until we get older and wiser, do we?
I liked Meara, apart her irritating personality at times. She is a typical teenage girl, and many girls, me included, can relate to her so well! She is a good person, and she cares about the people around her.
I loved Evan - he is just the sweetest person / boyfriend a girl can have. I honestly wish I had a boyfriend like him when I was 13-years-old. He made sandwiches, and they watched a movie in the car because it was raining, and he would come to Meara's house with flowers, and offer to help out with the chores? He is the cutest person ever.
''He was about six foot tall with wavy, black hair that curled over his ears. Tanned skin, lean muscles, and strong hands that ended in long, graceful fingers.''
But then, there is Kieran… I know he is the bad boy, but I might be able to ship him and Meara together - maybe? We'll see… It's an unpopular opinion, but I actually want to see them together. Even though Evan is just the sweetest thing, and it would be horrible if Meara broke his heart.
I really enjoyed this book - maybe I enjoyed it the most from all the other Young-Adult paranormal books I've read. It was a great first beginning to a series, and I can't wait to dig in the rest of the series.
As a finale - I had to also include this quote from the book:
''Humans are spiteful creatures. They destroy more than they create. That is why I do not associate with them.''
How can one day go so very wrong? One minute Meara Quinn is making plans for how she will spend the Summer before her senior year and the next she's finding out that her mother's cancer has returned and they are moving away from the only home she's ever known.
Now she is in a new country, taking care of her mother, living with grandparents she never met, meeting new friends at school and a guy she really likes and having weird visions of a father who was absent her entire life. There is a secret of who Meara is, and everyone seems to know this except her.
Meara is determined to find out the secrets that will change her life forever.
Review:
The beginning of this book in unbelievably good! Amazing intro and perfect character development. I loved how you could feel with Meara all the time, and go through with her while she leans about her mum's sickness and the movement to another country. It is very realistically described, and we manage to see this all through the eyes of a troubled teenager. And the descriptions of the scenes? Ahhh, just see for yourselves:
''The room was a deep purple and accented with an eclectic blend of antiques and comfortable furnishings. It was the kind of room that made a person long to grab a book and cozy into the oversized couch for a several hours.''
Thought, sometimes, there would be things that didn't make sense to me:
''The guy who delivered the pizza forgot plates and napkins. So, we just opened the box and dug in.''
Which delivery place on Earth, for God's sake, delivers plates and napkins? Is this an American thing? If I order pizza, I expect to dig into it with all my fingers, get really messy, and then lick them in the end. Just saying…
There were many twists and turns, mostly little ones in this first book, but the middle of the book gets really slow paced. For a moment, I thought this might be an unpleasant read, but it turned out to just be a calm before the storm, where the biggest twist happens right before the end, and it leaves us wanting more - therefore, the second book. Nicely done, Kelly Risser, nicely done!
Meara is an amazing girl, and we follow her story. She finds out her mum's cancer is back again, and they have to move from USA to Canada. For a teenage girl, that is a huge change. I loved the way she coped with it, even though, at the beginning she made me quite agitated - her mum is dying, and her thought are - life is unfair, why do I have to move to another country, and change schools and lose my friends? It made me incredibly angry, but as much as I don't want to admit it, those are the exact thoughts a teen would have in such moments. We don’t really tend to think about how our parents feel until we get older and wiser, do we?
I liked Meara, apart her irritating personality at times. She is a typical teenage girl, and many girls, me included, can relate to her so well! She is a good person, and she cares about the people around her.
I loved Evan - he is just the sweetest person / boyfriend a girl can have. I honestly wish I had a boyfriend like him when I was 13-years-old. He made sandwiches, and they watched a movie in the car because it was raining, and he would come to Meara's house with flowers, and offer to help out with the chores? He is the cutest person ever.
''He was about six foot tall with wavy, black hair that curled over his ears. Tanned skin, lean muscles, and strong hands that ended in long, graceful fingers.''
But then, there is Kieran… I know he is the bad boy, but I might be able to ship him and Meara together - maybe? We'll see… It's an unpopular opinion, but I actually want to see them together. Even though Evan is just the sweetest thing, and it would be horrible if Meara broke his heart.
I really enjoyed this book - maybe I enjoyed it the most from all the other Young-Adult paranormal books I've read. It was a great first beginning to a series, and I can't wait to dig in the rest of the series.
As a finale - I had to also include this quote from the book:
''Humans are spiteful creatures. They destroy more than they create. That is why I do not associate with them.''
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.