Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
During the golden age of cinematic horror, Lon Chaney terrified audiences with his portrayal of the Wolfman which launched the character as a cultural mainstay.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) in Movies
Jan 15, 2019
Classic
A man goes to Hawaii to forget about his celebrity ex-girlfriend…only to find that she’s staying at the same resort with her new dude.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Boy Who Talks to Animals in Books
Feb 29, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Boy Who Talks To Animals by Nic Carey is a hard book to describe. The best way I can come up with is to offer a quote from the book:
“Where does legend end and reality begin? Perhaps all reality has root in legend and the two are intertwined.” - Professor Lofthouse page 140
Ben has worked at the zoo for years and had always wanted to be a zookeeper ever since he was a child. He loves animals and has dedicated his life to their care and happiness. Sometimes this means going into work super early and at times staying all night long. One night he started to notice strange things happening at the zoo restaurant, making him believe someone is breaking in and getting into the food. Concerned about the security of the zoo and the safety of not only the animals but also for the person breaking in, Ben sets a trap and waits to see who it is.
Much to Ben’s surprise, the culprit is a young boy about twelve years old. This boy appears to be a runaway and has been getting his food from the zoo for quite a while now. Slowly Ben befriends the boy and discovers something odd and wondrous about him. While this boy either can’t or won’t talk to people, he can talk to animals. All the animals in the zoo love this boy, even the most dangerous ones consider him to be one of their own. The people that spend a lot of time around the boy also start to notice some changes within themselves. Now all Be can hope for is that the zoo can offer this special boy the shelter, protection, love, and life that he deserves.
What I liked best was the Professor's description of hidden skills and his explanation of Autism was one of the best I have ever heard. He suggests that our ancestors had abilities like the boy in the story but since we lost our connection with the planet we lost those abilities. At times that extra chromosome shows up, giving a person access to these ancient abilities, but they must give up something else such as the ability to speak in order to access it. Honestly, my biggest problem occurs before the book actually starts. There is a four-page synopsis at the beginning of the book. While a synopsis in itself is not a problem this one was so long and detailed that after reading it I lost interest in reading the book. This was because the synopsis contains major spoilers and tells the reader how the book ends. I highly recommend if anyone decides to read this book that you do not read the synopsis.
Content-wise this book is safe for just about anyone to read. Aside from kissing the only thing that could be classified as inappropriate is a primate grabbing at a woman’s butt in one short area. The book is a bit long which may discourage some younger readers. I rate this book 2 out of 4. The story itself is really good but the delivery isn’t all that great. Besides the synopsis (which ruined the book for me) inside the book which tells everything of importance that happens. Also, the book drags, nothing really happens until the last few chapters and the first half of the book is really slow to progress.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
“Where does legend end and reality begin? Perhaps all reality has root in legend and the two are intertwined.” - Professor Lofthouse page 140
Ben has worked at the zoo for years and had always wanted to be a zookeeper ever since he was a child. He loves animals and has dedicated his life to their care and happiness. Sometimes this means going into work super early and at times staying all night long. One night he started to notice strange things happening at the zoo restaurant, making him believe someone is breaking in and getting into the food. Concerned about the security of the zoo and the safety of not only the animals but also for the person breaking in, Ben sets a trap and waits to see who it is.
Much to Ben’s surprise, the culprit is a young boy about twelve years old. This boy appears to be a runaway and has been getting his food from the zoo for quite a while now. Slowly Ben befriends the boy and discovers something odd and wondrous about him. While this boy either can’t or won’t talk to people, he can talk to animals. All the animals in the zoo love this boy, even the most dangerous ones consider him to be one of their own. The people that spend a lot of time around the boy also start to notice some changes within themselves. Now all Be can hope for is that the zoo can offer this special boy the shelter, protection, love, and life that he deserves.
What I liked best was the Professor's description of hidden skills and his explanation of Autism was one of the best I have ever heard. He suggests that our ancestors had abilities like the boy in the story but since we lost our connection with the planet we lost those abilities. At times that extra chromosome shows up, giving a person access to these ancient abilities, but they must give up something else such as the ability to speak in order to access it. Honestly, my biggest problem occurs before the book actually starts. There is a four-page synopsis at the beginning of the book. While a synopsis in itself is not a problem this one was so long and detailed that after reading it I lost interest in reading the book. This was because the synopsis contains major spoilers and tells the reader how the book ends. I highly recommend if anyone decides to read this book that you do not read the synopsis.
Content-wise this book is safe for just about anyone to read. Aside from kissing the only thing that could be classified as inappropriate is a primate grabbing at a woman’s butt in one short area. The book is a bit long which may discourage some younger readers. I rate this book 2 out of 4. The story itself is really good but the delivery isn’t all that great. Besides the synopsis (which ruined the book for me) inside the book which tells everything of importance that happens. Also, the book drags, nothing really happens until the last few chapters and the first half of the book is really slow to progress.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Green Room (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a fruitless tour, a punk group, The Ain’t Rights, find themselves out of money and stealing gas to get back home. When a recommendation from a fan looking for an interview leads them to play one more show out in the backwoods of Oregon to a crowd of white supremacists, they become witnesses to a murder and barricade themselves in the green room. With no clear escape, they enter into a deadly battle of wills with the owner of the club, and his band of skinheads, and quickly discover that they have no intention of letting them leave alive.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
My love for Eurovision is as deep as some of the songs in Eurovision attempt to be, I live for ridiculous costumes and dance moves... and I LOVE quips from Graham. I'm glad I didn't have a lot of time to really think about what this film might come out to be, it would definitely have hindered the watching process.
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
Rooted in Humanity
SOUND OF METAL has a pretty simple “one-line summary”: Heavy Metal Drummer deals with going deaf. But is it the humanity at the center of this film that makes it worthwhile.
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
A gothic boarding school tale that falls flat
Rose Christie is nervous but excited when she's hired on as the new Head of Classics at Caldonbrae Hall, a boarding school for girls in Scotland. A renowned establishment for 150 years, Caldonbrae is a far step above Rose's current teaching gig and will offer a chance to help her mother, who is struggling with MS. Rose is the first external hire in over a decade, making her an immediate outsider, along with her youthful age. She quickly feels over her head at Caldonbrae, where the teachers and students alike seem to lord over her. But soon Rose realizes that everyone seems to be on to a secret, except her. Why did the last Classics teacher, Jane, leave so suddenly? As Rose learns more about Caldonbrae, she quickly realizes it is nothing like she expected.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.
"One way or another someone was going to get eaten alive here, Rose realized. She'd be damned if it was her."
I'm a sucker for boarding school stories, but this one did not live up to the promised hype for me. It grew on me a small bit by the end, but when I say this is a slow burning tale, I mean SLOW. I was incredibly tempted to "DNF" this book, but stuck with it, skimming or fast reading portions of it. The big twist, so to speak, doesn't come until halfway through (55% in fact). At that point, we have sat through lots of classics lessons and pontificating about Caldonbrae and gotten to know a lot of girls at the school.
Although, "getting to know" is probably generous, as there's a lack of character development throughout most of MADAM. There are a variety of girls at Caldonbrae thrust upon us, but I found it nearly impossible to keep many of them straight. (It doesn't help that the UK version of schooling is hard to follow, with thirds, fourths, and more tossed about, but rarely ages. Woe to us idiotic Americans!)
We know little about Rose, are offered a scarce backstory, and pieces about her father that are supposed to form her personality seem tossed in haphazardly. Instead she drove me crazy with her dithering and inability to make decisions. Most of the time I just wanted to shake her. She was in an impossible situation, perhaps, but she seemed unable to grasp anything for much of the book, or realize the seriousness of her circumstances.
I think MADAM was going for ominous and creepy--everything building up to its explosive ending (which is hinted at in the beginning pages), but it falls short. Instead, it seems more annoying and perplexing. When the twist is revealed, it's an interesting one, yes, but I couldn't help but question it, wonder how such a thing could be sustainable. MADAM just couldn't keep up the eerie tone it was trying for.
There's definite storytelling potential here, and I did find myself somewhat attached to a few of the girls by the end, when things pick up slightly. MADAM tries to align the classics (think tales of Medea and Antigone and such) with its boarding school girls, but often the tacked on tales of these mythical and classical women feel like unnecessary, added on pieces. It reaches too high, trying for a feminist angle, but falls short, with a fast ending that cannot possibly live up to all those classical, high-reaching aims.
"...she wondered how an establishment that promised to educate 'girls of the world' could somehow make its women feel so small."
Overall, there's a lot going on in MADAM, but it just didn't gel for me. I couldn't root for Rose for most of the novel, and the classic pieces inserted into the plot didn't work. There were sparks I enjoyed, but overall, this wasn't a favorite. 2.5 stars.