Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This is the Spider-Man movie that we deserved.
It’s hard to believe that the movie I would end up saying that about would be an animated one. Nevertheless, I left the theater this time feeling a sense of warm satisfaction for the first time since Sony originally graced us with Tobey Maguire.
Spider-Ma n: Into the Spider-Verse is the most poignant statement that Sony could make about their recommitment to all things webslinger. The star-studded cast for this film includes Academy Award winners like Nicolas Cage and Mahershala Ali as well as the likes of Lily Tomlin, Chris Pine, and John Mulaney. But those aren’t even the main characters. Along with the stellar writing, an unbelievably well curated soundtrack and art direction that can only be described as sublime, Into the Spider-verse was exactly what we all needed right now.
This entry into the world of Spider-man actually brings us up to date with the comics by introducing us to Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), the black teenager from Brooklyn who has taken up the mantle of Spider-man following the death of Peter Parker (well, one of them). Witnessing Parker’s demise at the hands of The Kingpin, Morales promises to help destroy the weapon that killed him. Little does he realize that the weapon has opened a hole in the multiverse and multiple other spider men, women (and things) have been drawn through the rift into his universe. They all have to work together to get back to their own universes and to prevent the destruction of reality itself.
The soundtrack for this movie really brings Spider-man into modern times. Artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and Run the Jewels speak to the Brooklyn upbringing of Morales as the new webslinger. At the same time, it also serves up artists like Marshmello, Pendulum and Prodigy who demonstrate how action can be fueled through their EDM stylings. The music here is the most perfect complement to each part of the action and drama alike. Just as you will see multiple different Spider-men, you’ll be taken through a wide spectrum of musical stylings to match each hero.
The animation style displayed here really can’t be appropriately categorized. Part graffiti, part moving comic book and part CGI, the film brings together numerous different styles and effects such as cell-shading, anime breaks and word bubble subtitles to create something truly unique. The medium itself is perfect because we can finally see everything that a live-action film couldn’t execute. But unlike other animated superhero movies, this feature brings the artistic nature of illustrations to new levels. The mix of styles is unlike any cartoon you’ve ever seen (or are likely to see again). Beauty and realism combine to actually take you into a comic book instead of simply translating one for the screen.
The writing for Into the Spider-verse achieves something that few producers have managed to do in the animation field: it’s equally appealing to both children AND adults. These days it’s rare to see an animated superhero film being made for the big screen instead of going straight to television. As a result, Into the Spider-verse offers up plenty of quick witted and intelligent jokes for adults without crossing the lines of propriety. In addition to the quality humor, the story includes a number of emotional moments that all manage to evoke real feelings instead of coming off as just pandering. So, if you’re planning to take your children to this movie, you’ll certainly both enjoy it.
All-in-all, Into the Spider-Verse brings together all of the best elements in film-making and executes them to perfection. Writing, drawing, music all come together to create an experience that you have to see to believe. The only disappointing part here is that we had to wait 16 years for a Spider-Man movie this well done.
It’s hard to believe that the movie I would end up saying that about would be an animated one. Nevertheless, I left the theater this time feeling a sense of warm satisfaction for the first time since Sony originally graced us with Tobey Maguire.
Spider-Ma n: Into the Spider-Verse is the most poignant statement that Sony could make about their recommitment to all things webslinger. The star-studded cast for this film includes Academy Award winners like Nicolas Cage and Mahershala Ali as well as the likes of Lily Tomlin, Chris Pine, and John Mulaney. But those aren’t even the main characters. Along with the stellar writing, an unbelievably well curated soundtrack and art direction that can only be described as sublime, Into the Spider-verse was exactly what we all needed right now.
This entry into the world of Spider-man actually brings us up to date with the comics by introducing us to Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), the black teenager from Brooklyn who has taken up the mantle of Spider-man following the death of Peter Parker (well, one of them). Witnessing Parker’s demise at the hands of The Kingpin, Morales promises to help destroy the weapon that killed him. Little does he realize that the weapon has opened a hole in the multiverse and multiple other spider men, women (and things) have been drawn through the rift into his universe. They all have to work together to get back to their own universes and to prevent the destruction of reality itself.
The soundtrack for this movie really brings Spider-man into modern times. Artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and Run the Jewels speak to the Brooklyn upbringing of Morales as the new webslinger. At the same time, it also serves up artists like Marshmello, Pendulum and Prodigy who demonstrate how action can be fueled through their EDM stylings. The music here is the most perfect complement to each part of the action and drama alike. Just as you will see multiple different Spider-men, you’ll be taken through a wide spectrum of musical stylings to match each hero.
The animation style displayed here really can’t be appropriately categorized. Part graffiti, part moving comic book and part CGI, the film brings together numerous different styles and effects such as cell-shading, anime breaks and word bubble subtitles to create something truly unique. The medium itself is perfect because we can finally see everything that a live-action film couldn’t execute. But unlike other animated superhero movies, this feature brings the artistic nature of illustrations to new levels. The mix of styles is unlike any cartoon you’ve ever seen (or are likely to see again). Beauty and realism combine to actually take you into a comic book instead of simply translating one for the screen.
The writing for Into the Spider-verse achieves something that few producers have managed to do in the animation field: it’s equally appealing to both children AND adults. These days it’s rare to see an animated superhero film being made for the big screen instead of going straight to television. As a result, Into the Spider-verse offers up plenty of quick witted and intelligent jokes for adults without crossing the lines of propriety. In addition to the quality humor, the story includes a number of emotional moments that all manage to evoke real feelings instead of coming off as just pandering. So, if you’re planning to take your children to this movie, you’ll certainly both enjoy it.
All-in-all, Into the Spider-Verse brings together all of the best elements in film-making and executes them to perfection. Writing, drawing, music all come together to create an experience that you have to see to believe. The only disappointing part here is that we had to wait 16 years for a Spider-Man movie this well done.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Steve Jobs (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle, stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The Art of Hiding in Books
Oct 6, 2017
Right, I'm going, to be honest here and say that I really struggled with this book and it was only the last few chapters that bumped this up to a three star for me.
Until then It was a two all the way, so sorry.
I'm obviously in a minority here in regards to how The art Of Hiding was perceived by myself as I've seen many positive reviews singing its praises and this is a well-written story it just personally wasn't really my cup of tea.
So I'm going to try and pinpoint what wasn't working for me as there was never one major thing that stood out specifically and also what was actually floating my boat.
So first things first I've never read anything by Amanda Prowse before, so was going in blind here.
Well, my initial impression was that The Art Of Hiding was really well written, the words flowed easily and the writing style was one that was easy to get lost in.
But here comes my main problem, the actual story itself, I found it a bit boring and somewhat one-dimensional.
I also wondered whether the author herself has ever lived on the breadline or was this her portrayal of what she thinks it would be like to be in that scenario.
I thought to myself why wasn't Nina McCarrick with no income not down the job centre and putting in an application, dare I say it for housing benefit.
She was meant to be on her arse after all.
It also annoyed me how living on the breadline was initially portrayed all doom and gloom and shitty childhoods, I didn't find it a realistic portrayal of how the other half lives it was very stereotypical in the way it depicted the rich and the poor.
I found it so hard to connect with the characters especially Nina who I found very whiny and almost childlike in some of her reactions.
Thank god for Tiggy, she was a breath of fresh air and also very forgiving considering the way she has been treated by her sister over the past few years.
I was so glad we had tiggy to add a bit of realism to this tale, I needed her as She was the one character I actually liked completely.
So a brief description of The Art Of Hiding is Nina McCarrick has the perfect life.
Until that is her husband Finn dies in a car crash leaving Nina and their Two sons in a mountain of debt and their whole lives unravelling.
Nina moves her boys back to the streets of Southampton where she grew up and The Art Of Hiding is really the story of how Nina and her children cope and grow as individuals as their world implodes.
As I said earlier I couldn't initially connect, but then a bit before the end I felt it and this is mainly what made me bump this up a star, I had a lump in my throat as Nina and her kids visit their former home with Tiggy, it was very poignant and sentimental and after pages of just reading, I actually started to feel the words written.
Overall though this book didn't make me feel good, On finishing, I felt rather sad and deflated and I like my fiction to leave me feeling rejuvenated, an emotional wreck, happy even sad, but not deflated and down that's a no-no.
I really do think I would enjoy other works of Amanda Prowse's as I really did like the writing style It was just the Art Of Hiding just didn't quite hit the mark for me.
So, In conclusion, this is a well-written story hence the three stars, It just personally wasn't quite for me, yourself well we are all diverse in our likes and dislikes so give it a go, I would so love to hear your take on this.
I would like to thank Netgalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with an arc of The Art Of Hiding By Amanda Prowse, this is my own voluntary, honest opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Until then It was a two all the way, so sorry.
I'm obviously in a minority here in regards to how The art Of Hiding was perceived by myself as I've seen many positive reviews singing its praises and this is a well-written story it just personally wasn't really my cup of tea.
So I'm going to try and pinpoint what wasn't working for me as there was never one major thing that stood out specifically and also what was actually floating my boat.
So first things first I've never read anything by Amanda Prowse before, so was going in blind here.
Well, my initial impression was that The Art Of Hiding was really well written, the words flowed easily and the writing style was one that was easy to get lost in.
But here comes my main problem, the actual story itself, I found it a bit boring and somewhat one-dimensional.
I also wondered whether the author herself has ever lived on the breadline or was this her portrayal of what she thinks it would be like to be in that scenario.
I thought to myself why wasn't Nina McCarrick with no income not down the job centre and putting in an application, dare I say it for housing benefit.
She was meant to be on her arse after all.
It also annoyed me how living on the breadline was initially portrayed all doom and gloom and shitty childhoods, I didn't find it a realistic portrayal of how the other half lives it was very stereotypical in the way it depicted the rich and the poor.
I found it so hard to connect with the characters especially Nina who I found very whiny and almost childlike in some of her reactions.
Thank god for Tiggy, she was a breath of fresh air and also very forgiving considering the way she has been treated by her sister over the past few years.
I was so glad we had tiggy to add a bit of realism to this tale, I needed her as She was the one character I actually liked completely.
So a brief description of The Art Of Hiding is Nina McCarrick has the perfect life.
Until that is her husband Finn dies in a car crash leaving Nina and their Two sons in a mountain of debt and their whole lives unravelling.
Nina moves her boys back to the streets of Southampton where she grew up and The Art Of Hiding is really the story of how Nina and her children cope and grow as individuals as their world implodes.
As I said earlier I couldn't initially connect, but then a bit before the end I felt it and this is mainly what made me bump this up a star, I had a lump in my throat as Nina and her kids visit their former home with Tiggy, it was very poignant and sentimental and after pages of just reading, I actually started to feel the words written.
Overall though this book didn't make me feel good, On finishing, I felt rather sad and deflated and I like my fiction to leave me feeling rejuvenated, an emotional wreck, happy even sad, but not deflated and down that's a no-no.
I really do think I would enjoy other works of Amanda Prowse's as I really did like the writing style It was just the Art Of Hiding just didn't quite hit the mark for me.
So, In conclusion, this is a well-written story hence the three stars, It just personally wasn't quite for me, yourself well we are all diverse in our likes and dislikes so give it a go, I would so love to hear your take on this.
I would like to thank Netgalley, the publisher and the author for providing me with an arc of The Art Of Hiding By Amanda Prowse, this is my own voluntary, honest opinion.
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated This is How it Always Is in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Rosie and Penn are a bit of an amazing love story. They both knew they'd fall in love before they even met. Now they have five rambunctious kids, a farmhouse in Wisconsin, and a crazy, wonderful life. Things get a little more complicated, however, when their youngest son, Claude, starts wanting to wear a dress to preschool. Claude wants long hair with barrettes. Claude wants to be a princess when he grows up. Rosie and Penn are supportive of Claude: they just want their children to be happy, after all. But they soon realize Claude isn't just going through a phase. Claude has gender dysphoria, and their son wants to become a little girl named Poppy. The family is willing to support Poppy, but Rosie and Penn make the decision to do so in secret. But secrets don't stay kept forever.
<i>This is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and beautiful book.</i> It's filled with endearing characters, and I will certainly be recommending it to many people. I had a few issues with some of the realism aspects (more on that below), but I loved its details about raising children (of all kinds) and its humor. Penn, Rosie, and their kids are real.
Woven and embedded throughout this novel is a fairytale that Penn tells his children--starting with when his first boys were babies--and in some ways, the novel itself has its own fairytale moments. Frankel mentions that she does have a child who used to be a little boy and is now a little girl, but the story is not about her daughter. It is, she writes, "an act of imagination, an exercise in wish fulfillment." Still, you can imagine her as a supportive parent. That's certainly not everyone's experience. Does that mean everyone has to write a novel where the child's parents throw them out and society shames them? No. Would I have liked to have a seen a little more of a realistic take on how Poppy and her parents would deal with her secret and how those around her would take it? Maybe. It's not that the family doesn't have hardship, because they do, and Frankel does a good job showing that it takes a bit of a toll on her clan of brothers, as well. But--and I don't want to go into too much, as I don't want to give spoilers--I felt the resolution to the story was a bit pat. Much like Penn's fairytales, it seems to allow things to just wrap up quickly easily. So that was a little problematic for me. But, I didn't feel as irritated after reading Frankel's afterword, because I realize that this novel--for her--is indeed an "exercise in wish fulfillment." This is what she wants in the world. I won't lie: it's what I wish for as well. And perhaps reading novels like this, featuring a wonderful, precocious little boy who can become a wonderful, beautiful, mostly accepted little girl, is a great first step.
The novel is intricate and very detailed, though quite well-written. It's heartbreaking in Penn and Rosie's realization that Claude wants to be a girl and what that will mean for him and the family. They only want for their children to be happy. Frankel does an excellent job at portraying how adults and children can see the world so differently--in terms of gender and much more. As a parent, I often found myself wondering about what I'd do in their situation: it's a book that gets you thinking, for sure. In the end, I loved the family very much and was quite invested in their happiness. Again, another reason why I would have liked a slightly more developed ending after having gone through so much with them.
Still, this is a lovely, timely book. No matter some of the issues I had, I still enjoyed it and certainly recommend it.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
<i>This is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and beautiful book.</i> It's filled with endearing characters, and I will certainly be recommending it to many people. I had a few issues with some of the realism aspects (more on that below), but I loved its details about raising children (of all kinds) and its humor. Penn, Rosie, and their kids are real.
Woven and embedded throughout this novel is a fairytale that Penn tells his children--starting with when his first boys were babies--and in some ways, the novel itself has its own fairytale moments. Frankel mentions that she does have a child who used to be a little boy and is now a little girl, but the story is not about her daughter. It is, she writes, "an act of imagination, an exercise in wish fulfillment." Still, you can imagine her as a supportive parent. That's certainly not everyone's experience. Does that mean everyone has to write a novel where the child's parents throw them out and society shames them? No. Would I have liked to have a seen a little more of a realistic take on how Poppy and her parents would deal with her secret and how those around her would take it? Maybe. It's not that the family doesn't have hardship, because they do, and Frankel does a good job showing that it takes a bit of a toll on her clan of brothers, as well. But--and I don't want to go into too much, as I don't want to give spoilers--I felt the resolution to the story was a bit pat. Much like Penn's fairytales, it seems to allow things to just wrap up quickly easily. So that was a little problematic for me. But, I didn't feel as irritated after reading Frankel's afterword, because I realize that this novel--for her--is indeed an "exercise in wish fulfillment." This is what she wants in the world. I won't lie: it's what I wish for as well. And perhaps reading novels like this, featuring a wonderful, precocious little boy who can become a wonderful, beautiful, mostly accepted little girl, is a great first step.
The novel is intricate and very detailed, though quite well-written. It's heartbreaking in Penn and Rosie's realization that Claude wants to be a girl and what that will mean for him and the family. They only want for their children to be happy. Frankel does an excellent job at portraying how adults and children can see the world so differently--in terms of gender and much more. As a parent, I often found myself wondering about what I'd do in their situation: it's a book that gets you thinking, for sure. In the end, I loved the family very much and was quite invested in their happiness. Again, another reason why I would have liked a slightly more developed ending after having gone through so much with them.
Still, this is a lovely, timely book. No matter some of the issues I had, I still enjoyed it and certainly recommend it.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Just Like in the Movies (Summer Heat) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
This review was originally posted over on Lily Loves Indie here - http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=201
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
As with 'Right Click, Love', I really don't know where to start showering praise on this story. A happy ever after but with all the integrity and realism of the life of someone who just got lucky. Quirky, easy to relate to, completely believable and just a delight to read. There are so many things I just loved about it that I'm struggling to put them into words. That being said, you might need to wade through some gushing from myself as I try to pin down just a few key features for you....
I guess I'll start with Ava. She is so like me it is unbelievable, down to the relationships and everything (the books, the pets, the house). But I don't think that is the only reason I love her, it's her down to earth attitude to life and her personality as a whole. She's just so likeable! And so utterly believable as well! It's like she just hops out the page and starts talking to you, like a friend we probably all have (or the person we are in my case), she's just a delightful lead character. Her relationship with Morgan, and her friendship with Erica are also incredibly well written, again believable, realistic and enjoyable interactions throughout. They're all characters that we could encounter at work or amongst friends, and as a result of that we can engage with them so much easier, welcoming them into our lives like we would their real life counterparts. I've digressed, and waffled (no change there!) but what I'm getting at is that they are all fabulous characters, but especially Ava, she just has a certain something that makes her that extra bit more wonderful.
Another thing which I loved was the style in which this was written. Feeney includes everything we need to know, yet cleverly leaves little gaps to stimulate our imagination. I love finding this in a book as it gives the reader a little scope to make the characters their own, there's that little bit of wriggle room for interpretation. There's also a wonderfully dry sense of humour to Feeney's writing, a sort of wit and sarcasm that feels so natural and enjoyable to read. It makes it feel familiar, and it's more like chatting with a friend rather than reading a book. It's very well done and is so enjoyable to read, a much needed change from the ooey-gooey romances that line the shelves at the moment!
When you consider the length of the book, and the amount of content included, plus the space for your own ideas, Feeney shows great skill in developing a wonderful plot and cast of characters in such a relatively short amount of pages. This makes it so much easier for you to read because you get all the enjoyment and detail you'd find in a full length novel, yet you could easily read the story in a day without feeling you were being cheated or missing any of the action. I've not encountered many authors who has grasped such a skill for this genre and length, but Feeney is definitely one of them. She pitches it perfectly every time, doesn't miss a beat or opportunity to seize on a plot development point yet still keeps us guessing as to exactly what is going to happen. Even though I had an inkling Ava and Morgan would get it on, I in no way expected the ending that occurred!
In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book is rather amazing. I experienced a wide range of emotions, from warm fuzzies, to anger, laughing and crying, tutting at characters and cheering them on. For such a short story it doesn't half pack a punch, but I'm learning that this is Feeney's style. I cannot recommend this story highly enough, and really, truly, honestly think you should all go add it to Goodreads lists, and one-click it on Amazon UK or Amazon US.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Trust No One
It felt like I’d been waiting an eternity for Greta, and the suspense was killing me. I’d seen plenty of feedback from those who attended TIFF, and the trailer had played before so many films I’d seen in the cinema. The concept had intrigued me from day one, as I find myself very drawn to thrillers such as this one. Being stalked is a very real, very genuine fear, and it’s that sense of realism that makes it so terrifying.
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
The film follows widowed, lonely Greta (Isabelle Huppert) as she befriends Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) when she returns her handbag that was left on the New York Subway. The two form a bond rather quickly, but things take a sinister turn when Frances realises Greta is harbouring a dark secret. As it happens, this handbag was planted by Greta, who lay in wait hoping someone would bring it back to her. Unfortunately for Frances, she did.
Despite the fact the trailer for Greta spoils some key moments, it was still an incredibly gripping watch. The lead characters are very well acted, and I have significant praise for Isabelle Huppert, whose performance absolutely blew me away. The way she shifts from a kind, friendly old lady into a cold, deceptive psychopath is incredible to witness. As the titular character and film’s antagonist, she absolutely steals the show and the audience starts to fear her just as much as Frances. No one knows what she’s going to do next.
Chloe Grace Moretz’ character Frances is bubbly and kind, which ultimately leads to her downfall in the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. She is originally from Boston, and moved in with her friend following the death of her mother. Frances is haunted by this incident, which Moretz portrays convincingly throughout the film. She is a very likeable character, which makes her encounter with Greta so much scarier. I was rooting for her throughout, not wanting any harm to come to such a kind-hearted person.
Unfortunately for Frances, her kindness makes her very naïve, which is why she is initially so trusting of Greta. Her flat mate Erica (Maika Monroe) is much more street smart, even if she is a little annoying, and Frances makes the mistake of not listening to her warnings. When Frances finds a bag she thinks of returning it, when Erica finds one, she calls the bomb squad. The two have very different attitudes when it comes to life in the Big Apple.
Despite having some slow moments, it’s the performances given by these three leading ladies that made the film so enjoyable for me. They have very different backgrounds and attitudes, constantly clashing with each other and creating some great tension throughout. Greta will stop at nothing to win the affections of Frances, causing her to do some truly disturbing and almost unspeakable things.
The film knows how to give you that sense of dread, even when you know Greta is elsewhere, you can’t help but anticipate her round every corner Frances turns. This is a testament to the film’s camerawork, which purposely hides certain areas from the viewer, keeping you on edge throughout. The use of shadows and darkness helps with this too. Once Greta’s intentions are revealed, you don’t feel safe. However exaggerated and unrealistic they may be, they definitely make for an entertaining thriller.
It’s a solid thriller with a runtime of 1 hr 38 minutes, enough to provide sufficient exposition and amp up the tension when it needs to. Whilst it isn’t the strongest thriller I’ve seen, it is entertaining throughout and doesn’t need to rely on excessive violence in order to make its point. The film is certainly elevated by the character of Greta, who has quickly gone up in my list of favourite female villains. The film’s plot is completely and utterly crazy, but an enjoyable day out at the cinema nonetheless. This is the first Neil Jordan film I’ve seen, and I must say, I’m impressed.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/04/23/trust-no-one-my-thoughts-on-thriller-greta/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Grindhouse (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Back in the 70’s cheaply made independent films often came into their own. The studio released films were drawing smaller audiences’ thanks in large part to the arrival of color television and a greater variety of entertainment that people could view in their homes.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.