Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In a Dark, Dark Wood in Books
Jul 9, 2019
I've been a fan of Ruth Ware since I read The Death of Mrs. Westaway. Actually, what really made me love Ruth Ware was her book The Lying Game. When I came across In a Dark, Dark Wood, I was intrigued to say the least. I'm glad I decided to read this book because I believe it's Ruth Ware's best novel out of the four I've read.
Leonora, or Nora as she likes to be called, receives an email inviting her to Clare's hen do (bachelorette party). Nora and Clare used to be the best of friends, but that was 10 years ago. Nora is a bit wary of the invite, but when her friend Nina is invited and says she'll go if Nora goes, Nora agrees. Nora finds out who Clare is marrying, and it seems like things go from bad to worse including Nora being injured and others being hurt. Nora must find piece together what happened at Clare's hen do in order to figure out the mystery behind everything. There's only one problem. She can't remember what actually happened that night.
The plot really sucked me in right from the beginning. I was wondering why Nora would be invited to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken with in over 10 years. I also had to understand why Nora would even be interested in going considering it had been so long. I don't think I would have went. However, the whole plot fascinated me. I had to know the motives of everyone. I felt like everyone was a suspect, and I was scrutinizing every little detail. There are some plot twists, and a few of them are predictable, but I still loved In a Dark, Dark Wood. I also loved the fact that there were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the end of the book. One thing that did feel a bit improbable but not impossible was how Nora and her ex-boyfriend James ended things when they were teenagers. I have a hard time believing that not one of them would have reached out to the other in the whole ten years they had not seen each other especially right after their break up with what happened. Like I said, I guess it is possible to go without speaking to each other after that, but when something that major happens between a couple (I don't want to give the major thing away due to spoilers), I would have thought there would be more talking at some point.
I felt the characters were well written and had enough depth to the them to feel realistic. I enjoyed the character of Nora. All I can say is with what goes wrong for her makes me glad that I've never been in her position. I admired her desire to find out the truth even if it meant getting herself in trouble. However, sometimes I couldn't understand her reasoning behind some things such as wanting to go to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken to in ten years! Perhaps other people would go out of curiosity, but I would have just noped out of that. Also, what I mentioned in the previous paragraph about her not speaking to her ex even though there was something major that happened in their relationship. However, I really did like Nora. I had a love/hate relationship with Nina. Sometimes I liked her but other times she came across as too mean. I know that was just meant to be her personality, but I just had a hard time figuring her out. Flo was definitely a character. It was as if she was in love with Clare! She was obsessed with Clare and very high strung. I felt like Flo had some mental problems going on and needed help with them ASAP. I never knew if I should trust Flo or not. Clare seemed like she had changed from her school days when she was manipulative and selfish. I wish Clare would have been more of a forefront character throughout the book, but she felt like a minor character. Tom was definitely an interesting character to say the least. I did really like him, but I also questioned his motives.
I very much enjoyed the pacing for In a Dark, Dark Wood. The pacing flowed smoothly from the very first page. I never once felt like it slowed down at all. I was left hanging on every word.
Trigger warnings for In a Dark, Dark Wood include drinking, smoking, drug use, profanity, mentions of sex although not graphic, violence, gun violence, and death.
All in all, In a Dark, Dark Wood was a fantastic read! I enjoyed every second of the book, and I felt so empty after it ended because it was over. It had all the makings of a great book such as an interesting plot and fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend In a Dark, Dark Wood by Ruth Ware to those aged 17+ that love psychological thrillers and those who want to be sucked into a book from the very first sentence.
Leonora, or Nora as she likes to be called, receives an email inviting her to Clare's hen do (bachelorette party). Nora and Clare used to be the best of friends, but that was 10 years ago. Nora is a bit wary of the invite, but when her friend Nina is invited and says she'll go if Nora goes, Nora agrees. Nora finds out who Clare is marrying, and it seems like things go from bad to worse including Nora being injured and others being hurt. Nora must find piece together what happened at Clare's hen do in order to figure out the mystery behind everything. There's only one problem. She can't remember what actually happened that night.
The plot really sucked me in right from the beginning. I was wondering why Nora would be invited to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken with in over 10 years. I also had to understand why Nora would even be interested in going considering it had been so long. I don't think I would have went. However, the whole plot fascinated me. I had to know the motives of everyone. I felt like everyone was a suspect, and I was scrutinizing every little detail. There are some plot twists, and a few of them are predictable, but I still loved In a Dark, Dark Wood. I also loved the fact that there were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the end of the book. One thing that did feel a bit improbable but not impossible was how Nora and her ex-boyfriend James ended things when they were teenagers. I have a hard time believing that not one of them would have reached out to the other in the whole ten years they had not seen each other especially right after their break up with what happened. Like I said, I guess it is possible to go without speaking to each other after that, but when something that major happens between a couple (I don't want to give the major thing away due to spoilers), I would have thought there would be more talking at some point.
I felt the characters were well written and had enough depth to the them to feel realistic. I enjoyed the character of Nora. All I can say is with what goes wrong for her makes me glad that I've never been in her position. I admired her desire to find out the truth even if it meant getting herself in trouble. However, sometimes I couldn't understand her reasoning behind some things such as wanting to go to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken to in ten years! Perhaps other people would go out of curiosity, but I would have just noped out of that. Also, what I mentioned in the previous paragraph about her not speaking to her ex even though there was something major that happened in their relationship. However, I really did like Nora. I had a love/hate relationship with Nina. Sometimes I liked her but other times she came across as too mean. I know that was just meant to be her personality, but I just had a hard time figuring her out. Flo was definitely a character. It was as if she was in love with Clare! She was obsessed with Clare and very high strung. I felt like Flo had some mental problems going on and needed help with them ASAP. I never knew if I should trust Flo or not. Clare seemed like she had changed from her school days when she was manipulative and selfish. I wish Clare would have been more of a forefront character throughout the book, but she felt like a minor character. Tom was definitely an interesting character to say the least. I did really like him, but I also questioned his motives.
I very much enjoyed the pacing for In a Dark, Dark Wood. The pacing flowed smoothly from the very first page. I never once felt like it slowed down at all. I was left hanging on every word.
Trigger warnings for In a Dark, Dark Wood include drinking, smoking, drug use, profanity, mentions of sex although not graphic, violence, gun violence, and death.
All in all, In a Dark, Dark Wood was a fantastic read! I enjoyed every second of the book, and I felt so empty after it ended because it was over. It had all the makings of a great book such as an interesting plot and fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend In a Dark, Dark Wood by Ruth Ware to those aged 17+ that love psychological thrillers and those who want to be sucked into a book from the very first sentence.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
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!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Turn of The Key in Books
Sep 26, 2019
I am a huge fan of Ruth Ware. Even though I wasn't a fan of her book The Death of Mrs. Westaway, I loved The Lying Game and In a Dark, Dark Wood. When I found out about The Turn of the Key, I knew I had to read it as soon as possible. It was much better than I thought it was going to be!
The synopsis of the book had such a spooky feel, and I loved the plot of The Turn of the Key. Rowan isn't very happy at her job at Little Nippers, a daycare where she looks after babies and toddlers. Plus, it doesn't pay very well. When she comes across an ad to be a live in nanny for a rich couple's children for a fantastic sum, she jumps a the chance. She's surprised when she gets the job, but she is ecstatic. Heatherbrae, the house where she will nanny, is a smart house complete with an app that controls everything in the house. When her employers have to leave the next day, she is thrown into her job as a nanny of Maddie, Ellie, and Petra. Strange things start happening such as being woken up in the middle of the night with music blaring from the speakers all over the house and lights being turned on up to full brightness. Items go missing from their original place, and Maddie is a nightmare child to look after. Rowan begins to second guess her nannying job at Heatherbrae, but she decides to stick it out. Unfortunately, a child ends up dead, and Rowan ends up in prison for the child's murder even though she swears she's innocent. Was Rowan framed or was it the work of something far more sinister?
I thought everything flowed smoothly, and The Turn of the Key definitely had me spooked. I kept trying to guess what was going on. The Turn of the Key hints that it could be something paranormal throughout the story, so I kept wondering if it was some sort of ghost or if it was a person. I'd also try to guess who was behind it all, but I was wrong. There are a few plot twists and one major plot twist that blindsided me completely. It was a plot twist that made me actually made my draw drop! I doubt any reader would have or will predict that plot twist. One minor thing that I was left pondering over had to do with the ending when all is revealed. I won't give any spoilers away, but I will say it's never mentioned how a person can get into a certain sealed off room. That's all I will say on that matter because I don't want to give too much away. Other than that, every other question I had was answered by the last page. As for the pacing, it is done perfectly. Not once did I feel as if The Turn of the Key slowed down at all. This is a book that grabs your hand and pulls you along without letting go!
The characters in The Turn of the Key all felt very realistic and fleshed out well enough for everything to be believable. Rowan is a very likable character and kudos for her for actually staying on as a nanny at Heatherbrae when everything went pear shaped. Even though some of the kids were hard to love, she still wanted to do what's right by them. I would have high tailed it out of there quickly if I was in her position! I felt like she dealt with everything to the best of her ability. I admired Jack and how he was willing to help Rowan out. He came across as a very caring man. It was obvious that the character of Jean loved the children at Heatherbrae which made me love her even if she wasn't featured very much. Sandra and Bill (the owners of Heatherbrae and Rowan's employers) were written well. They weren't very good parents I felt. They were too busy with their work to really know their children. Unfortunately, I know this happens in real life too. Maddie had her issues, but I loved how she was written. I felt bad for her because I felt like she was the black sheep of the family. I also felt bad for the oldest daughter Rhiannon. She was another one that seemed to have issues, but I loved her vulnerability at her lowest point. I loved the dialogue between Rowan and Rhiannon. Petra was just adorable, but Ellie was my favorite. She was easily swayed by her sister, Maddie, but I loved when she was away from Maddie and was able to be her own person. I felt she was just the sweetest little girl!
Trigger warnings for The Turn of the Key include profanity, drinking, underage drinking, lying, blackmail, a child's death, marital cheating, and mentions of sex (although not graphic).
Overall, The Turn of the Key is such a well written book. The plot sucks you in from the beginning, and the characters are all very interesting! I would definitely recommend The Turn of the Key by Ruth Ware to everyone age 16+ who enjoy a fantastic psychological read!
The synopsis of the book had such a spooky feel, and I loved the plot of The Turn of the Key. Rowan isn't very happy at her job at Little Nippers, a daycare where she looks after babies and toddlers. Plus, it doesn't pay very well. When she comes across an ad to be a live in nanny for a rich couple's children for a fantastic sum, she jumps a the chance. She's surprised when she gets the job, but she is ecstatic. Heatherbrae, the house where she will nanny, is a smart house complete with an app that controls everything in the house. When her employers have to leave the next day, she is thrown into her job as a nanny of Maddie, Ellie, and Petra. Strange things start happening such as being woken up in the middle of the night with music blaring from the speakers all over the house and lights being turned on up to full brightness. Items go missing from their original place, and Maddie is a nightmare child to look after. Rowan begins to second guess her nannying job at Heatherbrae, but she decides to stick it out. Unfortunately, a child ends up dead, and Rowan ends up in prison for the child's murder even though she swears she's innocent. Was Rowan framed or was it the work of something far more sinister?
I thought everything flowed smoothly, and The Turn of the Key definitely had me spooked. I kept trying to guess what was going on. The Turn of the Key hints that it could be something paranormal throughout the story, so I kept wondering if it was some sort of ghost or if it was a person. I'd also try to guess who was behind it all, but I was wrong. There are a few plot twists and one major plot twist that blindsided me completely. It was a plot twist that made me actually made my draw drop! I doubt any reader would have or will predict that plot twist. One minor thing that I was left pondering over had to do with the ending when all is revealed. I won't give any spoilers away, but I will say it's never mentioned how a person can get into a certain sealed off room. That's all I will say on that matter because I don't want to give too much away. Other than that, every other question I had was answered by the last page. As for the pacing, it is done perfectly. Not once did I feel as if The Turn of the Key slowed down at all. This is a book that grabs your hand and pulls you along without letting go!
The characters in The Turn of the Key all felt very realistic and fleshed out well enough for everything to be believable. Rowan is a very likable character and kudos for her for actually staying on as a nanny at Heatherbrae when everything went pear shaped. Even though some of the kids were hard to love, she still wanted to do what's right by them. I would have high tailed it out of there quickly if I was in her position! I felt like she dealt with everything to the best of her ability. I admired Jack and how he was willing to help Rowan out. He came across as a very caring man. It was obvious that the character of Jean loved the children at Heatherbrae which made me love her even if she wasn't featured very much. Sandra and Bill (the owners of Heatherbrae and Rowan's employers) were written well. They weren't very good parents I felt. They were too busy with their work to really know their children. Unfortunately, I know this happens in real life too. Maddie had her issues, but I loved how she was written. I felt bad for her because I felt like she was the black sheep of the family. I also felt bad for the oldest daughter Rhiannon. She was another one that seemed to have issues, but I loved her vulnerability at her lowest point. I loved the dialogue between Rowan and Rhiannon. Petra was just adorable, but Ellie was my favorite. She was easily swayed by her sister, Maddie, but I loved when she was away from Maddie and was able to be her own person. I felt she was just the sweetest little girl!
Trigger warnings for The Turn of the Key include profanity, drinking, underage drinking, lying, blackmail, a child's death, marital cheating, and mentions of sex (although not graphic).
Overall, The Turn of the Key is such a well written book. The plot sucks you in from the beginning, and the characters are all very interesting! I would definitely recommend The Turn of the Key by Ruth Ware to everyone age 16+ who enjoy a fantastic psychological read!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 4 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
USS Callister - 7.5
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Place Beyond The Pines (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I really wanted to sit at my computer tonight and write about how much I disliked this movie. I was practically begging people to go with me, but no one wanted to. So I ended up going on my own. The only thing I really knew about this film going into it was that it was from Derek Cianfrance, the writer/director of “Blue Valentine”. I didn’t care much for BV, and so my hopes were not high for “The Place Beyond the Pines”, but actually, Pines surprised me.
Pines is the story of two men on opposite sides of the law, just trying to do the right thing and how what they do impacts each other’s lives, and the lives of their sons. Of course the means by which they got to the “right thing” was not always the “right way”, but ultimately they were trying to good.
Ryan Gosling plays “Heart Throb” Luke Glanton, a stunt motorcycle rider with a traveling circus. We open on him doing his thing in Schenectady, New York, and after his performance he sees Romina (“Roe”, portrayed by Eva Mendes). You can tell these two have history, as though they met the last time his little side show burned through town. Cutting through the awkwardness, Luke finds out that Roe had a kid. His kid, Jason. Though, he didn’t find out from her. Determined to make things right, despite Roe having moved on being with another man, Luke sticks around Schenectady to try and be part of his son’s life and to win Roe from her man. Only things don’t begin moving fast enough for him, and so turns to robbing banks in this small town as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child. Only things go south fairly quickly and this puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop.
Bradley Cooper plays Avery Cross; a rookie cop on the force all of six months. After a harrowing deed that puts takes him off duty for several months and causes him so serious psychological issues which make it hard for him to even look at his son, Avery Jr. After his recovery, Avery returns to the force only to be thrust into a den of corrupt cops, gangs and a genuine fear for his life. He is not sure how to react at first, but eventually knows that he must do the right thing… even if it means ratting out his brothers in arms. This doesn’t prove to be an easy course for him, but he is determined to do the right thing, despite it tearing his family apart.
Act one of this film focuses on Gosling and Mendes’ characters and their tumultuous relationship. When they first brought Mendes on screen, I was really questioning the casting choice. By the end of the act, those questions were still there. It just didn’t seem like Gosling and Mendes had the chemistry that the makers of the film were desperately trying to portray. But we do see a lot into the character of Luke and how much he really just wants to be there for his son. Gosling did an excellent job with the role, but I feel like there was thing that was distracting from his performance: his hair. For some reason they decided bleach blond was the way to go to this character, but mostly what I was thinking when he was on screen was that it just looked out of place and I really had to concentrate to get past it.
Act two focuses on Bradley Cooper and the turmoil he goes through. I can’t say too much without giving away some major plot points of the film, but Bradley Cooper definitely did an excellent job playing the young rookie cop. He has an excellent supporting cast for his act with Harris Yulin playing his father, Rose Byrne as his wife and Bruce Greenwood as the District Attorney. He eventually manages to get from underneath all the lies, coercion and corruption to make a bid for an Assistant District Attorney position.
Fast forward to 15 years later, and this is where our act three takes place. Only now we are focusing on the lives of young Jason and Avery Jr. The deeds of their fathers in yester year, portrayed in our first two acts, affect our young subjects as they become friends without realizing the history between their families. I felt that Dane DeHaan who portrayed a 17-year old Jason knocked it out of the park with his performance. But there is something left to be said for Emory Cohen who is on screen as Avery Jr.
Want to know the rest? Watch the movie. Acts one and two, though long winded at points, blew me out of the water. Cianfrance did an excellent job of captivating the audience and making you care for the two focus points, despite them being on completely different sides of the law (as mentioned earlier). Act three, however, fell kind of flat to me. It very well could be a result of a poor casting choice in Emory Cohen, but I also felt like they could have shaped the end of this tail into so much more.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie, despite a lackluster ambition to go see it. Would I have gone to see it on my own if I had to pay for it? Nah! But it is a good date movie and might possibly start some interesting conversations between you and your partner.
Pines is the story of two men on opposite sides of the law, just trying to do the right thing and how what they do impacts each other’s lives, and the lives of their sons. Of course the means by which they got to the “right thing” was not always the “right way”, but ultimately they were trying to good.
Ryan Gosling plays “Heart Throb” Luke Glanton, a stunt motorcycle rider with a traveling circus. We open on him doing his thing in Schenectady, New York, and after his performance he sees Romina (“Roe”, portrayed by Eva Mendes). You can tell these two have history, as though they met the last time his little side show burned through town. Cutting through the awkwardness, Luke finds out that Roe had a kid. His kid, Jason. Though, he didn’t find out from her. Determined to make things right, despite Roe having moved on being with another man, Luke sticks around Schenectady to try and be part of his son’s life and to win Roe from her man. Only things don’t begin moving fast enough for him, and so turns to robbing banks in this small town as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child. Only things go south fairly quickly and this puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop.
Bradley Cooper plays Avery Cross; a rookie cop on the force all of six months. After a harrowing deed that puts takes him off duty for several months and causes him so serious psychological issues which make it hard for him to even look at his son, Avery Jr. After his recovery, Avery returns to the force only to be thrust into a den of corrupt cops, gangs and a genuine fear for his life. He is not sure how to react at first, but eventually knows that he must do the right thing… even if it means ratting out his brothers in arms. This doesn’t prove to be an easy course for him, but he is determined to do the right thing, despite it tearing his family apart.
Act one of this film focuses on Gosling and Mendes’ characters and their tumultuous relationship. When they first brought Mendes on screen, I was really questioning the casting choice. By the end of the act, those questions were still there. It just didn’t seem like Gosling and Mendes had the chemistry that the makers of the film were desperately trying to portray. But we do see a lot into the character of Luke and how much he really just wants to be there for his son. Gosling did an excellent job with the role, but I feel like there was thing that was distracting from his performance: his hair. For some reason they decided bleach blond was the way to go to this character, but mostly what I was thinking when he was on screen was that it just looked out of place and I really had to concentrate to get past it.
Act two focuses on Bradley Cooper and the turmoil he goes through. I can’t say too much without giving away some major plot points of the film, but Bradley Cooper definitely did an excellent job playing the young rookie cop. He has an excellent supporting cast for his act with Harris Yulin playing his father, Rose Byrne as his wife and Bruce Greenwood as the District Attorney. He eventually manages to get from underneath all the lies, coercion and corruption to make a bid for an Assistant District Attorney position.
Fast forward to 15 years later, and this is where our act three takes place. Only now we are focusing on the lives of young Jason and Avery Jr. The deeds of their fathers in yester year, portrayed in our first two acts, affect our young subjects as they become friends without realizing the history between their families. I felt that Dane DeHaan who portrayed a 17-year old Jason knocked it out of the park with his performance. But there is something left to be said for Emory Cohen who is on screen as Avery Jr.
Want to know the rest? Watch the movie. Acts one and two, though long winded at points, blew me out of the water. Cianfrance did an excellent job of captivating the audience and making you care for the two focus points, despite them being on completely different sides of the law (as mentioned earlier). Act three, however, fell kind of flat to me. It very well could be a result of a poor casting choice in Emory Cohen, but I also felt like they could have shaped the end of this tail into so much more.
Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie, despite a lackluster ambition to go see it. Would I have gone to see it on my own if I had to pay for it? Nah! But it is a good date movie and might possibly start some interesting conversations between you and your partner.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Whiplash (2014) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance. It'll have you on the edge of your seat, with your heart still pounding even after it's over.
I believe that there’s a desire in all of us to achieve greatness. A deep, internal yearning for importance, respect, and acceptance. We want to be remembered and we want to fulfill a sense of purpose in our lives. For Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller), the central character in the 2014 Best Picture nominated film Whiplash, that desire is to be one of the all-time great jazz drummers. Of course, he knows that accomplishing such a goal will require a firmly fixed focus, an uncompromising dedication, and endless hours of practice. What he surely wasn’t expecting was to run into a teacher like Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who will stop at nothing in order to push his students to strive to be their very best. Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance.
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.