Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Memoirs of a Geisha in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Memoirs of a Geisha is a historical fiction book published on September 27th 1997. Told in the first person Viewpoint of Geisha Sayuri (Original name Chiyo), It follows her journey from her childhood in a fishing village on the coast of Japan, forcibly taken to a Hanamachi in Gion Kyoto and raised to become a Geisha before experiencing the horrors of WW2 and being a Geisha during the hard work of rebuilding after a harrowing defeat.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Veronica Mars (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The incomparable Rob Thomas has delivered a masterpiece of dramatic film that all Veronica Mars fans will thoroughly enjoy.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
(Note: I am a rabid fan of the Veronica Mars TV series. Much of the review will be clearly colored by this.)
10 years after the debut of an exceptional TV show, and eight years after it was unceremoniously pulled from the airwaves, Rob Thomas put up a Kickstarter campaign to fund a movie. It had a goal of $2 million, which would get the movie made — but it wouldn’t get us much.
As it turned out, 91,585 people liked his plan to create a film that would wrap up storylines from the series. They liked it enough that rather than pledging just $2 million, the backers generated over $5.7 million.
In the process of doing so, they achieved a number of amazing Kickstarter awards:
Fastest project to reach $1 million.
Fastest project to reach $2 million.
All-time highest-funded project in the FILM category.
Third-highest-funded project in Kickstarter history.
Most project backers of any project in Kickstarter history.
On to the movie itself.
The movies share its title with the TV show: Veronica Mars. It opens with a quick recap of the show’s two-season run before launching forward to a time 10 years after the series ended (intelligently appropriate, Rob).
Veronica (Kristen Bell) is primed to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. For a reason I can’t explain, she is interviewing with a very prestigious law firm in New York City. It’s a firm which, I have to imagine, doesn’t hire people fresh out of school, especially those who haven’t even passed the bar yet.
In the midst of her interviews, she gets a call from an old high school love interest, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). He has been accused of murder (again).
Naturally, Veronica decides to pack up, say goodbye to her boyfriend, Stosh “piz” Piznarski (Chris Lowell), and head back to her sunny home town of Neptune, California.
Logan, an Air Force pilot, is relieved to see his friend. He starts bringing her up to speed, and shortly thereafter, the rest of the familiar faces join in: Gia Goodman (Krysten Ritter), Mac (Cindy Majorino), Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen), Weevil (Francis Copa), Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), Wallace Fennel (Percy Daggs III), and many more that will delight returning viewers.
As you might imagine, a complex series of issues comes to light, creating a symphony of drama, and, in typical Rob-Thomas fashion, some true laugh-out-loud moments.
While this is a great standalone film, it is peppered with many humorous references and nods to the movie’s predecessor. If you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed. There are many giggle-worthy moments: from the guy on the street singing, “we used to be friends,” to Dax Shepard’s appearance, to the mention of Veronica supposedly going to work for the FBI (referring to a potential third season).
My only real note of contention is, admittedly, somewhat petty. Kristen Bell was just recovering from having her child with husband Dax Shepard. The unfortunate (and expected) weight gain from that wonderful life event left her looking very unlike the character we all fell in love with, and distracted from the film. I’m curious to know why they couldn’t have waited a few more months to start filming, to allow Bell to get back into shape for the movie.
Aside from that one tiny note, the film was fantastic. The script was masterfully written, the acting superb, the humor gut-heaving, and the drama well done.
Cinematography for the film was indistinguishable from other high-quality films, and it’s easy to see that a lot of time, effort, and care went into it. Its creators ensured that the $5.7 million of pledges went into a work of art that does not disappoint.
As one of the 91,000+ backers, I am proud to be a part of this community effort. As a huge fan of Thomas, the series, and the mythos, I am ecstatic to report that this is an excellent film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Johnny Marr recommended track Coconut Grove by The Lovin Spoonful in Very Best of the Lovin' Spoonful by The Lovin Spoonful in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: The Devil Wears Prada starts as newly graduated journalist Andy Sachs (Hathaway) gets a chance to work as the second assistant to editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly (Streep) at a high fashion magazine. Andy is one of many applicates only she doesn’t have the knowledge of the fashion world, unlike the first assistant Emily (Blunt).
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Lorey L. (3 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Mar 7, 2018
Loved! Would recommend for fans of chilling fairytales.
Immediately after finishing Albert's dark tale, I took to Goodread's knowing other's had been left with the same tingly sensation of bloody good wrongness. Unfortunately, I found for many this was not the case. The story was dark, creepy and had all the good bad things that make you listen too closely at bumps and stare too intensely at shadows.
First, the writing is completely breathtaking. The imagery in Albert's style is superb. It made me want to wrap up in a blanket with a hot cup of tea and a roaring fire and wish for her words to never end.
With that being said, I did find that at times it could get a little thick and hard to sludge through, but for me, that was infrequent enough to not give me too much of a bother. I felt there was a lot of backstory that could have been told in a more fluid manner, but nevertheless, it was (mostly) needed backstory.
The world Albert created in Hinterland... I need more. If more/most of the story had taken place in the Hinterland, I feel it would have been closer to 5 stars. But, being mostly set in New York it did still leave the storyline curious and mysterious enough to lure you in if given half a chance.
Secondly, the characters are... horrible and good and missing things. Personally, once I figured out who Alice was, I understood why she was written the way she was (more on that in a bit). Unfortunately, I felt most characters, outside of Alice, were mostly one-dimensional. More fully fleshed out and I may have found myself falling a little in love Finch, desperately wanting to know Ella, or even more curious about the mysterious Althea. They just needed a little... more.
Thirdly, the artwork. Oh good Lord in Heaven, I am in love with the cover art of this book. Dark and shiny and filled with images that beg to be understood. Jim Tierney should be praised almost as much as the author for lending the right mindset for this dark story.
Further, my favorite parts of this book were by far the snippets of Althea's Hinterland Stories. Even if you don't like the book- you will LOVE these stories. They are the perfect amounts of creepy, mysterious, weird, and wonderful.
Finally, a more in-depth look. I'd like to begin with Alice. I feel it's not that her character is "misunderstood" but that she is almost too understood. Mean, angry, violent. With little too no explanation for her outbursts... Except for the simple fact that many readers seem not to care about (and understandably, to a degree. She's not the most likable person). She was spun that way. With an icy core she is unable to control, a darkness she fears.
**"I'd let myself drift too close to the dark continent at the core of me, a lawless place I tried never to visit."**
*SPOILER* Alice Three Times is basically the villain of a dark fairytale. She is made up of rage and ice and blackness. The fact Ella helps her control it even a little is amazing. Understanding this allowed me to view Alice in a different way than I had other heroines. She was, in the end, simply trying to become an ex-Story. To try and be the normal girl she never had the chance of being. *END SPOILER* This made her annoying, unexplained, angry outbursts easier to understand and accept,
for me.
Finch, the only character we know to be a person of color (note: many characters within the book, as previously mentioned, are far from being fully-fleshed out. For most, ethnicity isn't even mentioned), is nerdy and verging-on-fierce, but kind-of, off-putting in some instances. For example, because he is such a "fan" there are several times he ignores the fact that he is making Alice uncomfortable, and especially *SPOILER* when he basically sells her to the Hinterland Stories for entry to their land*END SPOILER*
*SPOILER*I also wanted to quickly talk about the confrontation with the police that leads Finch to try and explain why he's mad, which in turn leads to Alice acting very Story-ish. I felt for Finch in a big way here. I was angry with her stupid, selfish reaction as well. I applauded him for standing up for her and got annoyed that she acted so irrationally and privileged. But, I realized after reading the section through again, Alice is not a person. She is a Story. And although she was raised a human, her "ice core" sometimes ruled her actions more than her mind- which seemed to agree with Finch, even though her actions, words, and anger said otherwise:
**"...You think rich matters in this situation? You think a cop looks at me and sees <i>rich?</i> You're pretending you don't get it, but you do."
<b>I did get it, I did. And the shame of it boiled into something darker.</b> Before my brain could catch up, I jerked the wheel and turned the car off the road, sending us rattling toward the trees."** *END SPOILER*
This isn't a book for everyone. I enjoy reading both the positive and negative reviews, as they shed new light on different aspects of the story! I loved it and I can't wait for Melissa Albert's book of Hinterland Stories- and maybe even a second Hazel Wood! If you do choose to give this book a try, go in with an open mind... and maybe a light on.
First, the writing is completely breathtaking. The imagery in Albert's style is superb. It made me want to wrap up in a blanket with a hot cup of tea and a roaring fire and wish for her words to never end.
With that being said, I did find that at times it could get a little thick and hard to sludge through, but for me, that was infrequent enough to not give me too much of a bother. I felt there was a lot of backstory that could have been told in a more fluid manner, but nevertheless, it was (mostly) needed backstory.
The world Albert created in Hinterland... I need more. If more/most of the story had taken place in the Hinterland, I feel it would have been closer to 5 stars. But, being mostly set in New York it did still leave the storyline curious and mysterious enough to lure you in if given half a chance.
Secondly, the characters are... horrible and good and missing things. Personally, once I figured out who Alice was, I understood why she was written the way she was (more on that in a bit). Unfortunately, I felt most characters, outside of Alice, were mostly one-dimensional. More fully fleshed out and I may have found myself falling a little in love Finch, desperately wanting to know Ella, or even more curious about the mysterious Althea. They just needed a little... more.
Thirdly, the artwork. Oh good Lord in Heaven, I am in love with the cover art of this book. Dark and shiny and filled with images that beg to be understood. Jim Tierney should be praised almost as much as the author for lending the right mindset for this dark story.
Further, my favorite parts of this book were by far the snippets of Althea's Hinterland Stories. Even if you don't like the book- you will LOVE these stories. They are the perfect amounts of creepy, mysterious, weird, and wonderful.
Finally, a more in-depth look. I'd like to begin with Alice. I feel it's not that her character is "misunderstood" but that she is almost too understood. Mean, angry, violent. With little too no explanation for her outbursts... Except for the simple fact that many readers seem not to care about (and understandably, to a degree. She's not the most likable person). She was spun that way. With an icy core she is unable to control, a darkness she fears.
**"I'd let myself drift too close to the dark continent at the core of me, a lawless place I tried never to visit."**
*SPOILER* Alice Three Times is basically the villain of a dark fairytale. She is made up of rage and ice and blackness. The fact Ella helps her control it even a little is amazing. Understanding this allowed me to view Alice in a different way than I had other heroines. She was, in the end, simply trying to become an ex-Story. To try and be the normal girl she never had the chance of being. *END SPOILER* This made her annoying, unexplained, angry outbursts easier to understand and accept,
for me.
Finch, the only character we know to be a person of color (note: many characters within the book, as previously mentioned, are far from being fully-fleshed out. For most, ethnicity isn't even mentioned), is nerdy and verging-on-fierce, but kind-of, off-putting in some instances. For example, because he is such a "fan" there are several times he ignores the fact that he is making Alice uncomfortable, and especially *SPOILER* when he basically sells her to the Hinterland Stories for entry to their land*END SPOILER*
*SPOILER*I also wanted to quickly talk about the confrontation with the police that leads Finch to try and explain why he's mad, which in turn leads to Alice acting very Story-ish. I felt for Finch in a big way here. I was angry with her stupid, selfish reaction as well. I applauded him for standing up for her and got annoyed that she acted so irrationally and privileged. But, I realized after reading the section through again, Alice is not a person. She is a Story. And although she was raised a human, her "ice core" sometimes ruled her actions more than her mind- which seemed to agree with Finch, even though her actions, words, and anger said otherwise:
**"...You think rich matters in this situation? You think a cop looks at me and sees <i>rich?</i> You're pretending you don't get it, but you do."
<b>I did get it, I did. And the shame of it boiled into something darker.</b> Before my brain could catch up, I jerked the wheel and turned the car off the road, sending us rattling toward the trees."** *END SPOILER*
This isn't a book for everyone. I enjoy reading both the positive and negative reviews, as they shed new light on different aspects of the story! I loved it and I can't wait for Melissa Albert's book of Hinterland Stories- and maybe even a second Hazel Wood! If you do choose to give this book a try, go in with an open mind... and maybe a light on.