Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Mar 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been looking forward to this since before it was cool.
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Other Mrs. in Books
Apr 4, 2020
Mental illness done correctly (1 more)
Addictive
Mental illness.
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
I've read a lot of horror books that cover this subject, watched horror movies covering this subject, listened to music covering this subject, but none of them have covered mental illness as well and correctly as Mary Kubica's "The Other Mrs.."
So, with that said, if you have any type of PTSD, this book may be hard for you to read. Otherwise, this novel is very addicting, filled with so many twists and turns that you won't be able to set it down for long. For me, someone who deals with C-PTSD, 'The Other Mrs.' by Mary Kubica has been a heartache to read, but also very fulfilling to finish.
Kubica is known for her best-selling novel 'the Good Girl' - - - a thriller following a mother and a detective in search of the the former's missing daughter that leads them down a twisted tale of family secrets. From highly acclaimed critics, 'the Other Mrs.' has out-done 'the Good Girl' as Kubica's best novel so far. Kubica sticks with her psychological thriller writing that she is known for in this newest novel. She keeps the reader guessing at what will happen next, and she plays out mental illnesses in a way that most who suffer can relate while winding in a mystery well enough that the reader won't be able to guess everything before the ending.
I can't give such a heavy review on this book because, to do so, would give away a lot of the ending, so I'll stick to talking about noteworthy characters that make up the novel. The main character is a woman named Sadie, whose family is being uprooted from Chicago and moved to a small island in Maine after her husband's sister dies, which leaves them with not only a house in the will, but a sixteen-year-old niece named Imogen.
Sadie is already a mother of two sons, both younger than sixteen, when she suddenly finds herself in-charge of the stereo-typical edgy teenager, Imogen. Sadie describes her the first time she sees Imogen: " But there she stands, a morose figure dressed in black. Black jeans, a black shirt, bare feet. Her hair is black, long with bangs that slant sideways across her face. Her eyes are outlined in a thick slash of black eyeliner. Everything black, aside from the white lettering on her shirt, which reads, I want to die. The septum of her nose is pierced. Her skin, in contrast to everything else, is white, pallid, ghostlike. She's thin. "
Early one morning when Sadie is heading off to work, she finds a word spelled on her car window. The word reads: "Die." Sadie, as most readers, quickly assumes that Imogen is responsibly for this, as she tries to explain: "I've tried to be understanding because of how awful the situation must be for her. Her life has been upended. She lost her mother and now must share her home with people she doesn't know. But that doesn't justify threatening me. Because Imogen doesn't mince words. She means just what she said. She wants me to die."
The next character that makes up a big part of this story is a confident, self-centered woman, whose name is Camille,and is also the 'other woman' in this story. Camille is a woman who gets what and who she wants, and won't let anyone get in her way, including Sadie, whose husband is someone Camille wants. I can't go much into the things that Camille's character does because it would give away a lot of the surprises in this novel - - - I can say though that there is murder and mystery throughout; the book will leave most readers guessing until the very end.
One other character who deserves mentioning is a little girl- - - with the nickname 'Mouse' - - - who finds herself suddenly dealing with a horrific stepmother, who abuses her physically and mentally unbeknownst to Mouse's father. One time, in which Mouse shows how smart she is to her the stepmother while being in front of her father (who Mouse likes to call 'Fake Mom'), later that night, when Mouse's father isn't looking, Fake Mom lets Mouse know how she felt about that:
" But later that night, when he father wasn't looking, Fake Mom got down into Mouse's face and told her if she ever made her look stupid again in front of her father, there would be hell to pay. Fake Mom's face got all red. She bared her teeth like a dog does when it's mad. A vein stuck out of her forehead. It throbbed. Fake Mom spit when she spoke, like she was so mad she couldn't stop herself from spitting. Like she was spitting mad. She spit on Mouse's face but Mouse didn't dare raise a hand to wipe it away."
Mental and physical abuse make up all that The Other Mrs. is about. So far, this is the best story I have read in a long time. My only problem with it is it's written like a YA novel, where it seems Kubica tried to keep that from happening by throwing in some heavy syllable words to make it more fitting for adults. But, luckily, she left out most of the wishy-washy elements that make up YA novels, so I believe most adults will enjoy this. I highly recommend this book to people who love murder mysteries!
Hadley (567 KP) rated Gods Go Begging in Books
May 8, 2021
Amazing writing (2 more)
Great storytelling
Good characters
Not many books can visit the Vietnam war so gracefully, especially fictional books that aren't political thrillers. Of course, there's a reason for that, other than drug use and the orders to kill innocent civilians, it was a war that drove soldiers to madness, but this is only the tip of the iceberg in Alfredo Vea's third novel Gods Go Begging.
Mai and Persephone are as close as sisters, one was born in America, and the other was born in Vietnam; the two met because their husbands had fought in the Vietnam war, but had never returned, sealing an unbreakable bond between the two women. While the two spent most of their time cooking together, they decided to open up a luncheonette, and share their love of food with the city - - - until one night, when two young men showed up to smash their dreams by murdering both of them in cold blood. Little did the defense attorney for one of the young men, Jesse Pasadoble, know that these women would not only leave a scar on him, but they would also cause memories from a hill in Vietnam to haunt him all over again.
While Pasadoble is working the two women's murder case, he's also working another heart-wrenching case involving a white supremacist who has possibly molested and raped his own niece. Pasadoble tries his best to distance himself from the case, especially because he has to defend the man in question, but sometimes he lets his temper get the best of him. Pasadoble comes face-to-face with his client in an angry stare-off. After putting up with racial statements from the client, Pasadoble puts him in his place. The client may be a big man who can frighten most people, but Pasadoble pacifies him with his own anger, threatening to kick his ass in front of everyone that is in the jail setting the tone of what type of person Pasadoble can be for the reader.
The readers get flashbacks of Pasadoble's time in the Vietnam war, specifically one fight that happened on a hill near the Loatian border. These flashbacks happen suddenly throughout the book, but I personally believe that they are so important to understanding the world in which Vea has created in the novel because, near the end of the book, these flashbacks make everything come full circle. One of these flashbacks introduces an important character who is the Padre in Pasadoble's platoon - - - during such flashback, the Padre has devastating things happen around him that begin to make him question his faith in God.
Although the flashbacks happen here and there, the story easily continues on with Pasadoble's double homicide case getting more complicated by the page when the second of the two suspects is suddenly found dead on a hill that the locals call 'Tourette's Hill.' One such local that lived near the hill is one of the victims' mothers, Mrs. Harp, who is a very odd character: she's an aging beauty queen whose home is covered in photographs of only her, and none of her deceased son, and even while Pasadoble questions her about her son, she seems to get lost in a reverie of what her life was like before the son existed.
Pasadoble is the key character in this story; without him, connections would not have been made and characters would not have mattered. Pasadoble, a man who has a way with words, such as speaking with an ex-girlfriend about a 'hill' : "Carolina, think about the stratifications of an open hillside, a place where earth has given way and time itself is left exposed, layer upon layer - - - silica, clay, diatoms, and ash. Down here at this level is the time of the swelling sea; here, the time of the desert when hot, rising air would have haunted our eyes; here is a jagged karst, a time when the world shook an abrasion into its own skin; and here are the fossil dead, here you will find love and war in the same shamble of strewn bone. Here and there, where the world has shifted and cracked open, one era will touch another. And once upon the rarest time, human hands and eyes from the distant past can seek out and find... search for and contact... hands and eyes of the present time... our time. " Pasadoble reveals that everyone has a 'hill' that they constantly battle, his just happens to be the one where he lost brothers on in Vietnam.
I can't go much further into the story without giving away some of the great details that made up this book, but I can say I was blown away by this story. This is by far one of the best crime fiction books I have ever read; this is one of those crazy good books that you have never heard of that will change how you view things after you read it. Vea is one of the few authors that exist today that can make a story read like poetry. I highly recommend this novel to people who like crime fiction.
Mai and Persephone are as close as sisters, one was born in America, and the other was born in Vietnam; the two met because their husbands had fought in the Vietnam war, but had never returned, sealing an unbreakable bond between the two women. While the two spent most of their time cooking together, they decided to open up a luncheonette, and share their love of food with the city - - - until one night, when two young men showed up to smash their dreams by murdering both of them in cold blood. Little did the defense attorney for one of the young men, Jesse Pasadoble, know that these women would not only leave a scar on him, but they would also cause memories from a hill in Vietnam to haunt him all over again.
While Pasadoble is working the two women's murder case, he's also working another heart-wrenching case involving a white supremacist who has possibly molested and raped his own niece. Pasadoble tries his best to distance himself from the case, especially because he has to defend the man in question, but sometimes he lets his temper get the best of him. Pasadoble comes face-to-face with his client in an angry stare-off. After putting up with racial statements from the client, Pasadoble puts him in his place. The client may be a big man who can frighten most people, but Pasadoble pacifies him with his own anger, threatening to kick his ass in front of everyone that is in the jail setting the tone of what type of person Pasadoble can be for the reader.
The readers get flashbacks of Pasadoble's time in the Vietnam war, specifically one fight that happened on a hill near the Loatian border. These flashbacks happen suddenly throughout the book, but I personally believe that they are so important to understanding the world in which Vea has created in the novel because, near the end of the book, these flashbacks make everything come full circle. One of these flashbacks introduces an important character who is the Padre in Pasadoble's platoon - - - during such flashback, the Padre has devastating things happen around him that begin to make him question his faith in God.
Although the flashbacks happen here and there, the story easily continues on with Pasadoble's double homicide case getting more complicated by the page when the second of the two suspects is suddenly found dead on a hill that the locals call 'Tourette's Hill.' One such local that lived near the hill is one of the victims' mothers, Mrs. Harp, who is a very odd character: she's an aging beauty queen whose home is covered in photographs of only her, and none of her deceased son, and even while Pasadoble questions her about her son, she seems to get lost in a reverie of what her life was like before the son existed.
Pasadoble is the key character in this story; without him, connections would not have been made and characters would not have mattered. Pasadoble, a man who has a way with words, such as speaking with an ex-girlfriend about a 'hill' : "Carolina, think about the stratifications of an open hillside, a place where earth has given way and time itself is left exposed, layer upon layer - - - silica, clay, diatoms, and ash. Down here at this level is the time of the swelling sea; here, the time of the desert when hot, rising air would have haunted our eyes; here is a jagged karst, a time when the world shook an abrasion into its own skin; and here are the fossil dead, here you will find love and war in the same shamble of strewn bone. Here and there, where the world has shifted and cracked open, one era will touch another. And once upon the rarest time, human hands and eyes from the distant past can seek out and find... search for and contact... hands and eyes of the present time... our time. " Pasadoble reveals that everyone has a 'hill' that they constantly battle, his just happens to be the one where he lost brothers on in Vietnam.
I can't go much further into the story without giving away some of the great details that made up this book, but I can say I was blown away by this story. This is by far one of the best crime fiction books I have ever read; this is one of those crazy good books that you have never heard of that will change how you view things after you read it. Vea is one of the few authors that exist today that can make a story read like poetry. I highly recommend this novel to people who like crime fiction.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated In Safe Hands in Books
Mar 19, 2019 (Updated Sep 29, 2019)
love love LOVED this one!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Mav is. . . .broken, and thinks fixing things is downing a bottle of Jack. Crashing on his sister's sofa isn't doing him or her any favours. When Jamie calls him out to do something for her, Mav really has to dig deep to get out of his stupor. Meeting the new client, however, does wonders. Deacon needs some help. After a scandal last year left him penniless, he can't afford to pay for the protection he needs. someone is out to get him, and the bodies keep piling up. Mav needs to up his game, and when the threat comes to a 2 year old child, Deacon's niece, both Mav and Deacon know they would do anything to keep her safe, even if it means Mav breaks Deacon's heart.
I am, personally, not in a good place. Not a BAD place, just not doing so well and my reading is suffering. I said I would read this before the poop hit the fan, and I was concerned I would not be able to give this book my full attention, or worse, not be able to finish it at all.
BUT!!!
I bloody LOVED this book!
Mav is, by his own admission, one drink short of becoming an alcoholic. His sister takes him in, and he's drowning his sorrows every night. Losing his career, and his leg, after a helicopter was bombed while he was the pilot has soured Mav to life and he just wants to be left alone. His sister, Jamie, ain't having none of it! She ropes him into talking to a possible new client, while she attends another job for her private investigations business. Deacon, lead singer of a boy band who was spectacularly disgraced last, is the client. A reporter twisted some truths, and Deacon's life came crashing down around his ears. He lost custody of his niece. Now, no one believes him, that someone is following him. When things escalate to a break in at his flat, and said reporter turns up dead, the police start to take notice. All the while, as Deacon continues to fall, Mav holds him up, keeps him close.
I loved that things crept up on Deacon and Mav, the feelings they begin to have for each other. It's not that thunderbolt and lightning thing: more a sweeping rain storm that starts off as drizzle then increases in it's intensity til neither Mav nor Deacon can deny it any longer. Loved that, after the initial shock of seeing Mav's face, Deacon is like: okay, scars make you, YOU. Mav is concerned about the other scars, the ones on his leg and residual and again, Deacon is not at all bothered. It makes Mav see that maybe, just maybe, they can make it work.
I must admit, I had an inkling who might be doing what they were doing to Deacon, very early on. Something they said set off bells and it was great being able to watch it all unfold. I have no idea WHAT this person said, I really don't, but something they said went ding ding ding and when Mav puts the pieces together, oh my! That man's alpha-protect-whats0mine instinct went into massive overdrive! Loved that, when it all went down, Mav and Deacon both knew, with just a look, that they might not come out of this alive.
LOVED that the baddie gets a voice!
Mav and Deacon's story carries some difficult topics: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, PTSD, murder (in some detail from the baddie!) All difficult topics, but very well written, and the research shows. I was particularly impressed with the research into Mav's accident, his injuries and what he went through after losing his leg. That doesn't always come across in a way a lay person such as myself can fully comprehend, but Ms Sue nailed it here!
This book may well have been the one to kick start my ability to write a coherent review, or at least I think it makes sense!
5 full and shiny stars!
Michael Pauley narrates.
Having READ this book previously, what I was particularly looking for was the baddie’s voice. When I read it, something they said made my brain go ding, ding, fire alarm in the head, ding and I KNEW that this person was the baddie. HERE, in audio, I wanted to see if I could pick up just WHAT they said to make all the alarms go.
And I got . . . nothing. The voice gave nothing away! Pauley NAILED that, he really did! So, while I was glad I didn’t get what they said to set me off, I’m also a little miffed 😊
As for Deacon and Mav, Pauley nailed those guys too! Mav’s voice is deep and dark, much like the man. I had a whole different voice in my head when I was reading, but once Mav speaks with the voice Pauley gave him, I knew mine was all kinds of wrong and Pauley’s was the RIGHT voice for Mav. My voice for Deacon was very much like Pauley’s for him, though.
Pauley’s reading voice works very well for my shitty hearing, rolling deep and clear and even. There was no dipping for the voices, even when they were very emotional. The emotions still came across very well, just sometimes, when characters get particularly emotional, the voices dip slightly, but not here.
Michael Pauley is a firm favourite of a narrator and coupled with Victoria Sue’s work?? It can only get. . .
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Mav is. . . .broken, and thinks fixing things is downing a bottle of Jack. Crashing on his sister's sofa isn't doing him or her any favours. When Jamie calls him out to do something for her, Mav really has to dig deep to get out of his stupor. Meeting the new client, however, does wonders. Deacon needs some help. After a scandal last year left him penniless, he can't afford to pay for the protection he needs. someone is out to get him, and the bodies keep piling up. Mav needs to up his game, and when the threat comes to a 2 year old child, Deacon's niece, both Mav and Deacon know they would do anything to keep her safe, even if it means Mav breaks Deacon's heart.
I am, personally, not in a good place. Not a BAD place, just not doing so well and my reading is suffering. I said I would read this before the poop hit the fan, and I was concerned I would not be able to give this book my full attention, or worse, not be able to finish it at all.
BUT!!!
I bloody LOVED this book!
Mav is, by his own admission, one drink short of becoming an alcoholic. His sister takes him in, and he's drowning his sorrows every night. Losing his career, and his leg, after a helicopter was bombed while he was the pilot has soured Mav to life and he just wants to be left alone. His sister, Jamie, ain't having none of it! She ropes him into talking to a possible new client, while she attends another job for her private investigations business. Deacon, lead singer of a boy band who was spectacularly disgraced last, is the client. A reporter twisted some truths, and Deacon's life came crashing down around his ears. He lost custody of his niece. Now, no one believes him, that someone is following him. When things escalate to a break in at his flat, and said reporter turns up dead, the police start to take notice. All the while, as Deacon continues to fall, Mav holds him up, keeps him close.
I loved that things crept up on Deacon and Mav, the feelings they begin to have for each other. It's not that thunderbolt and lightning thing: more a sweeping rain storm that starts off as drizzle then increases in it's intensity til neither Mav nor Deacon can deny it any longer. Loved that, after the initial shock of seeing Mav's face, Deacon is like: okay, scars make you, YOU. Mav is concerned about the other scars, the ones on his leg and residual and again, Deacon is not at all bothered. It makes Mav see that maybe, just maybe, they can make it work.
I must admit, I had an inkling who might be doing what they were doing to Deacon, very early on. Something they said set off bells and it was great being able to watch it all unfold. I have no idea WHAT this person said, I really don't, but something they said went ding ding ding and when Mav puts the pieces together, oh my! That man's alpha-protect-whats0mine instinct went into massive overdrive! Loved that, when it all went down, Mav and Deacon both knew, with just a look, that they might not come out of this alive.
LOVED that the baddie gets a voice!
Mav and Deacon's story carries some difficult topics: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, PTSD, murder (in some detail from the baddie!) All difficult topics, but very well written, and the research shows. I was particularly impressed with the research into Mav's accident, his injuries and what he went through after losing his leg. That doesn't always come across in a way a lay person such as myself can fully comprehend, but Ms Sue nailed it here!
This book may well have been the one to kick start my ability to write a coherent review, or at least I think it makes sense!
5 full and shiny stars!
Michael Pauley narrates.
Having READ this book previously, what I was particularly looking for was the baddie’s voice. When I read it, something they said made my brain go ding, ding, fire alarm in the head, ding and I KNEW that this person was the baddie. HERE, in audio, I wanted to see if I could pick up just WHAT they said to make all the alarms go.
And I got . . . nothing. The voice gave nothing away! Pauley NAILED that, he really did! So, while I was glad I didn’t get what they said to set me off, I’m also a little miffed 😊
As for Deacon and Mav, Pauley nailed those guys too! Mav’s voice is deep and dark, much like the man. I had a whole different voice in my head when I was reading, but once Mav speaks with the voice Pauley gave him, I knew mine was all kinds of wrong and Pauley’s was the RIGHT voice for Mav. My voice for Deacon was very much like Pauley’s for him, though.
Pauley’s reading voice works very well for my shitty hearing, rolling deep and clear and even. There was no dipping for the voices, even when they were very emotional. The emotions still came across very well, just sometimes, when characters get particularly emotional, the voices dip slightly, but not here.
Michael Pauley is a firm favourite of a narrator and coupled with Victoria Sue’s work?? It can only get. . .
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Mar 20, 2018
A dazzling, geeky feast for the eyes!
I don't really do books. In the last twenty years or so, I've probably only read one book from start to finish, and that book was Ready Player One. And I absolutely loved it, reading it pretty much non stop until I'd completed it. As anyone else who has read the book knows, there's a hell of a lot in there for someone to try and incorporate into any movie adaptation that gets undertaken, not to mention all the rights needing to be obtained for the vast wealth of famous characters, movies and video games that it features and recreates in such intricate geeky detail. Steven Spielberg is probably about a good a choice as any for tackling something like this though, and to say I was excited heading in to the preview screening of this would be a serious understatement.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.
The movie covers a lot of detail up front in a fairly brisk, but very effective introduction in order to set the scene. It's 2045, and our hero is Wade Watts, living high up in 'The Stacks', towers of trailers crudely stacked and held up together by metal beams in a densely populated urban area of Columbus. As Wade descends from his home, he passes his neighbours, many of whom are wearing some kind of VR headsets, involved in different kinds of online activity that we can't see. Wade tells us that at some point in the past people just stopped trying to fix lifes problems and learnt to just live with them instead. And to make things easier, they have the OASIS. The virtual world that his neighbours, and billions of people around the world, all connect to in order to escape the daily grind of the real world. In the OASIS you can be anyone you want to be, do anything you want to do. There are different worlds you can visit, and coins to be earned in order to upgrade your experience. Wade has all his equipment for connecting to the OASIS hidden away among the nearby piles of scrap cars, and when he puts on his headset, we are introduced to his online avatar, Parzival. He tells us about James Halliday, creator of the OASIS, who died five years ago. He left behind a message, informing the world that within the OASIS he'd hidden an Easter egg. Anyone who could find the three keys needed to unlock the door to that Easter egg, would inherit his entire fortune, and gain complete control of the OASIS. Since then, nobody has even got their hands on the first key. Nobody has their name up on the high score board. So... Ready Player One...
And so it kicks off, in dazzlingly glorious fashion, with a crazy multi-vehicle race through New York city in order to get to the finish line and grab the first key. It's like Mario Kart on steroids, with jumps and hazards throughout. Wrecking balls smashing the road, a T-Rex causing havoc and Kong jumping from building to building, smashing things up and taking players out of the game. But nobody can make it to the finish line. It's a fantastic, dizzy assault on the senses, and the first of many scenes where you find yourself frantically scouring the screen to see how many famous cars and characters you can spot. Parzival himself is driving a DeLorean, obviously. We're also introduced to fellow racer, and legend within the OASIS, Art3mis, who after being rescued by Parzival, becomes a close friend. Along with Art3mis, Parzival has a number of other close friends within the OASIS - Aech, Daito and Shoto, none of whom he has met in real life. As Parzival finds the first key, and begins sharing that knowledge with his friends in order to work together for the rest of the keys, they become known as the High Five, in recognition of their names being top of the scoreboard.
The bad guy of the movie is Nolan Sorrento, who used to work for Halliday. He, along with his army of employees, are out to try and take over the OASIS for monetary gain and will do whatever it takes in order to make that happen. When Sorrento discovers the real world identity of Parzival, things begin to get very difficult for the High Five who now have to struggle to not only find the keys first, but also evade capture in the real world.
I don't remember all of the details from the book, so I can't comment too much on what's been missed. But I do know that the puzzles surrounding the keys differ in the movie from those in the book. There are also some pretty big elements which don't feature in the book at all, but the main thing for me was that the overall spirit of the book definitely carries over to the movie. There is some occasional second half drag, but that's inevitable when there are so many prolonged moments of eye-popping visuals on display in-between. One thing I do remember well from the book is the final act, where Wade calls upon an army of OASIS users to help him and the high five fight Sorrento and his army in order to gain access to the final key. It's something I always imagined while reading as being absolutely epic if it were ever to be recreated on screen. Luckily, it is. Wow, just wow!! And once again, like with much of this movie overall, I sat there, wide eyed and with a big gormless geeky grin on my face.