Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m kind of like everyone else out there. I grew up with the Ninja Turtles. I loved the cartoons, the comics and most of all the toys. I remember the pizza shooter. Boy, did I get into some trouble with that. When the movie came out in 1990, I begged and begged by father to take me to it until he finally did. I loved that movie! And while it may not for most, it still hold up for me today.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Motion of Puppets in Books
May 16, 2018
In Keith Donohue's modern retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice, The Motion of Puppets, we're introduced to a range of characters from a besotted husband and his missing wife, to an emotionally unstable puppet girl as the husband embarks on a journey to save his wife from eternity as a doll. For fans of mythology, this sounds like a great read and it is, without a doubt, beautifully written; however, when it comes to execution, the story fell flat.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Theo and Kay Harper are newlyweds with a ten year age difference between them. A teacher at a local college, Theo takes an summer vacation away from New York with his wife, Kay, as she performs with a cirque in Quebec City. While she works, he translates a book from French to English, and everything appears to be fine. That is, until Kay suddenly disappears one night after going out with her fellow actors for dinner and drinks. Woven with necromancy, animated puppets, and many references to the madness of Alice in Wonderland, Donohue's story could be considered riveting, and perhaps I would gladly label it so if I had not been so profoundly bored while reading it.
The book's plot is, in and of itself, highly intriguing. As a fan of horror and having proclaimed a love for anything necromantic in nature, the idea of people becoming puppets, or even dying and being reanimated in any fashion really, is something apt to catch my attention, and for that reason and my love of ancient mythology, I requested an advanced reader's copy of The Motion of Puppets. My frustration with it came mostly in the fact that I felt like the book progressed too slowly and there seemed to be a lot of extra "fluff" added in. For instance, the snippets regarding Theo's translation of Eadweard Muybridge's biography really felt a bit unnecessary. There was no real correlation between Muybridge and the book itself, save to provide Theo with something on which to focus. That, also, didn't feel necessary, as Theo seems to be a rather detached character, despite his very clear obsession with his wife. Even Kay's point of view seems to be a bit overly deluded, considering her time as a puppet is significantly shorter than that of the other puppets around her and yet she seems almost as aloof as they are by the conclusion of the book.
In addition to moving at a bit of a slow pace, The Motion of Puppets also seems to rely a bit more on Alice in Wonderland-like elements than it does mythos or current happenings. Everything seems weird and ridiculous, and little, if anything, makes any sense. If you try to make sense of it, chances are you'll find yourself lost, which I found myself giving up on halfway through the book. Magic is clearly alluded to as being the cause for the current state of the majority of the cast's existence; however, it is hardly mentioned and never really explained. Clearly there's enough oddness going on that the nearly-faceless bad guys worry about being found out, but even that isn't enough of a reason to delve into the why or how: it simply is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keith Donohue is an excellent writer; he has a beautiful command of language that quite literally takes my breath away. Though The Motion of Puppets failed to satisfy me as a reader, I will likely read more of his work when I have the time. As for the genre of this book, horror probably isn't the right one. It'd be better suited in fantasy. There's nothing scary here.
Thank you to Macmillan-Picador, NetGalley, and the author for providing me with an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
A complete waste of time
Aside from Avengers Endgame, 2019 is shaping up to be pretty disappointing when it comes to blockbuster movies. Godzilla received a bit of a panning from the critics (although I personally quite liked it), then Dark Phoenix took an even bigger hit in the reviews, which I completely agree with. And now we have a sequel that nobody asked for, to a movie which has already had a couple of fairly average sequels, which has also received a wave of early bad reviews this week. To be honest, the trailer for Men In Black International certainly looked a bit....meh. A bunch of random stuff happening, no real indication of any plot, some annoying looking CGI aliens and an attempt to just coast off the back of having Thor and Valkyrie reunited on screen. I still remember how memorable the original trailer for the 1997 MIB movie was when it featured in cinemas - the shades, the guns, the aliens, the massive flying saucer crash landing in front of a cool looking Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. This trailer had none of that wow factor, but I went in, hopeful as always that the reviews were wrong.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Animators in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Sharon Kisses (yep, that's her real name) and Mel Vaught meet in college in upstate New York. Sharon is a reserved, talented girl from a rural Kentucky town. Mel is a out, tough, lesbian from Florida -- all bravado hiding a softer interior. The two form a fast friendship, bonding quickly over their art and their family histories: both come from dysfunctional families who have formed the girls into what they are today. Mel and Sharon pour this into their art, and they become talented animation partners, with their first movie showing a raw, truthful look at Mel's childhood and her mother, a rough woman who ended up in jail. The two are on the cusp of success -- tours, awards, artistic grants. But success comes with an edge: Mel starts drinking and turning to drugs, while Sharon doubts herself and her role in this brilliant duo. Suddenly, however, none of that matters when tragedy strikes the pair, and everything they've known changes in an instant.
This book is insane and amazing. I honestly had no idea what it was about when I started to read it; I surely had read the ARC blurb when I chose it, but had forgotten by the time I began, and the cover art seems to indicate a light-hearted tale about movies and animation. It is not. This is a powerful, gut-wrenching novel that will drag you into its story and characters and eventually spit you out, exhilarated and exhausted. There was so much about this novel I loved and related to: the fast friendship of two girls in college; an actual lead lesbian character (but whose lesbianism wasn't her only defining aspect - how refreshing); Sharon and her doubts and insecurities - the way she feels as if she's disappearing into herself in her thirties; the way Whitaker so easily captured growing up in a rural town (Sharon's Kentucky hometown)... I immediately identified with both characters, although Sharon is our protagonist, and the one telling us our story.
I won't lie to you: this book will make you feel uncomfortable. It's not a fun read, or really even a pleasant one. It's not a "feel good novel." It hurts--physically hurts--to read this book. Some of the novel is uneven, and it jumps around a bit. This is Whitaker's first novel, and I think she's only going to get more amazing as she goes, because you can look past this, and see so much power and force in this book. It's raw. It's the story of a friendship, and it's told so beautifully that you are completely drawn into Mel and Sharon's world. When you read this book, there is really nothing else going on in your life but this novel. Mel and Sharon are real, you love them, and you can see them in your mind. (I saw Mel as Kate McKinnon, despite the references to Lori Petty.) The storyline, for me, was unexpected, and, as I said, jumped a bit, but it worked. I had one issue with the end (a bit of a cliche about straight/lesbian friendship, but I won't go into it much, for spoiler reasons), but otherwise, found this novel to be energetic and forceful. It's dark, it's an ode to art and friendship and life, it's deep - I really have no words. It will take you to an exposed place inside of yourself, but you'll be glad it did.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 1/31/2017.
This book is insane and amazing. I honestly had no idea what it was about when I started to read it; I surely had read the ARC blurb when I chose it, but had forgotten by the time I began, and the cover art seems to indicate a light-hearted tale about movies and animation. It is not. This is a powerful, gut-wrenching novel that will drag you into its story and characters and eventually spit you out, exhilarated and exhausted. There was so much about this novel I loved and related to: the fast friendship of two girls in college; an actual lead lesbian character (but whose lesbianism wasn't her only defining aspect - how refreshing); Sharon and her doubts and insecurities - the way she feels as if she's disappearing into herself in her thirties; the way Whitaker so easily captured growing up in a rural town (Sharon's Kentucky hometown)... I immediately identified with both characters, although Sharon is our protagonist, and the one telling us our story.
I won't lie to you: this book will make you feel uncomfortable. It's not a fun read, or really even a pleasant one. It's not a "feel good novel." It hurts--physically hurts--to read this book. Some of the novel is uneven, and it jumps around a bit. This is Whitaker's first novel, and I think she's only going to get more amazing as she goes, because you can look past this, and see so much power and force in this book. It's raw. It's the story of a friendship, and it's told so beautifully that you are completely drawn into Mel and Sharon's world. When you read this book, there is really nothing else going on in your life but this novel. Mel and Sharon are real, you love them, and you can see them in your mind. (I saw Mel as Kate McKinnon, despite the references to Lori Petty.) The storyline, for me, was unexpected, and, as I said, jumped a bit, but it worked. I had one issue with the end (a bit of a cliche about straight/lesbian friendship, but I won't go into it much, for spoiler reasons), but otherwise, found this novel to be energetic and forceful. It's dark, it's an ode to art and friendship and life, it's deep - I really have no words. It will take you to an exposed place inside of yourself, but you'll be glad it did.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 1/31/2017.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Piece Of The World in Books
May 30, 2018
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Until reading Christina Baker Kline’s note at the end of the book, it is impossible to guess that it is based on real people, although, admittedly, it is a little strange to name the main character after oneself. In fact, A Piece of the World is written around a single painting in the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Christina’s World (1948) by Andrew Wyeth, a man who appears and paints this work in the story.
Baker Cline researched thoroughly into the background story of the painting. Christina Olson, the main character of this book, was a real person who posed for Wyeth as he painted this striking picture. Although the overall story is a work of fiction, the dates and key characters are biographically accurate. Beginning in 1939, the narrative weaves too and fro, from Christina’s present day to her childhood and back again. Christina is an ageing woman who can barely walk and lives in a dilapidated cottage with her brother on a hill in the village of Cushing, Maine. Having lived in this state for so long, it is a welcome surprise to be visited by the young Andrew Wyeth who falls in love with the cottage and regularly comes to work on his canvases in their upper rooms. Through their peaceful relationship and flashbacks to her past, Christina’s character development is investigated and knitted together to explain why she has become this recluse on a hill.
Christina had problems from a very young age. After almost dying from a fever, she developed an undiagnosed degenerative disease that slowly ate away at the nerves in her arms and legs. Today, neurologists believe this to be Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but there were no doctors able to provide this diagnosis at the time. Christina suffered aches and pains growing up and could barely walk in a straight line. Her determination to keep going is admirable and makes her a strong female protagonist.
One day in her early twenties, Christina meets a boy who pays her the kind of attention that she has never received before. Believing his promises that they will be together forever, she dares to dream of having a normal life. The reader, however, knows that the future Christina is alone with only her brother for company, making it heartbreaking to read of their developing romance knowing that it is not going to last.
There is no “happy-ever-after” to this story, nor is there a sad ending. It is an account of a woman who had been dealt a raw deal in life but continued getting on despite it. The end result, the painting Christina’s World, shows Christina as she sees herself. She may not be able to walk but she is still a woman; she made the most of her childhood, she never complained. This painting is her “letter to the World that never wrote to [Her].”
A Piece of the World is a powerful novel about purpose and determination. Christina may not have had a typical, successful life or become famous but she had her daily achievements: crawling through a field for an hour to visit a friend, cooking dinners despite not being able to stand up, carrying on after the end of a romantic relationship …
Written as gracefully as the brushstrokes of a painting with elements of Emily Dickinson thrown in here and there, A Piece of the World is a beautiful piece of work. It is something that can be enjoyed as you are mentally drawn into the storyline, leaving you wondering what happens to Christina and her brother after the completion of the painting. It is a novel the author can be proud of.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 3, 2018
Gemma Chan (1 more)
Constance Wu
OK. I don't do books, so I wouldn't have been aware of the best selling book that Crazy Rich Asians is based on. I don't usually do rom coms either, but that only tends to be the ones where they're the typical boy and girl hate each other and are thrown together until they love each other type movies. But, I do love a movie that's done well, regardless of genre. And as Crazy Rich Asians continues to receive much hype and success in the US (I'm in the UK), I thought I'd better go and see what all the fuss is about. So, as part of date night with the wife, we decided to go check it out!
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.