Search

Search only in certain items:

Thorn
Thorn
Intisar Khanani | 2020 | Fiction & Poetry, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Young Adult (YA)
10
10.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;

#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★

<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;

Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart. 

<b>Synopsis</b>

Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.

But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self. 

Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets. 

When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.

<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>

<b>My Thoughts:</b>

Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!

<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>

What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again. 

<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>

She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.

<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>

But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind. 

But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too. 

The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!

Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
  
Mother! (2017)
Mother! (2017)
2017 | Drama, Horror, Mystery
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?

Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.

Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).

Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.

Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.

Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
  
The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021)
The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021)
2021 | Drama, History, Thriller
8
8.5 (2 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).

Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.

Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.

There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.

The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).

Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.

But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.

So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.

It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.

Letter Grade: A-

8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
Did You See Melody?
Did You See Melody?
Sophie Hannah | 2017 | Crime, Mystery, Thriller
4
6.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
Yikes. This was bad, really bad. This started off as a buddy read with my reading pal Nicki @ The Secret Library, but she couldn’t even finish this one… and I don’t blame her!

<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>

First off, let’s talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.

Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way… she was just a bitch. She didn’t speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.

Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnie’s character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isn’t. Not in the slightest.

Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.

As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. I’m not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melody’s case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important “twisty” bits.

Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.

For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like it’s not a hugely important case to find a girl who’s been believed dead for years and years.

The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasn’t interested anymore and they didn’t do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didn’t entertain me.

Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didn’t get it the first time… and I mean very simple things... like “the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left”. Yeah, no shit.

This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!

You might be thinking “but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star?”… well, I don’t really get 1 star book reviews… if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didn’t put this one down so something about it kept me going… but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.

<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
  
40x40

ClareR (5879 KP) Aug 25, 2018

I would have to agree with everything you’ve written here! It was my first Sophie Hannah book, and I’m not all that sure I’ll read any of her earlier stuff. It was such a mess of a book! It felt like she just threw loads of different story ideas together. Not a fun read at all!

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
2008 | Sci-Fi
5
5.2 (9 Ratings)
Movie Rating
In 1951 Director Robert Wise helped create one of the most insightful films of the dawning Science Fiction genre. At that time, the growing theme was the good folks of Earth having to defend ourselves against all manner of evil creatures from beyond.
This tone has carried over to modern day as the notion of hostile invaders from beyond has become part of our cinematic and written culture.
The ironic thing about “The Day The Earth Stood Still” was that it was a cautionary tale that stood apart from the genre films of the day. Instead of an all out assault on humanity, a visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) came to deliver a message that change was needed or else there would be dire consequences. Klaatu told the people of the earth that they must learn to live in peace and make war a thing of the past or they would run the risk of being destroyed by more powerful races that would see them as a threat to their peaceful ways.

Klaatu had a powerful robot named Gort who would destroy any hints of aggression and used him to get his message of the need for peace across.

Now in 2008, 20th Century Fox has recreated this classic tale with a star studded cast and a large production budget.

In the new version, Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson, a scientist who is raising her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), who still mourns for his father who was recently killed while serving in the gulf. One night, Helen is taken into custody by agents who whisk her and other scientists to a secret conference where it is learned that an object in on a collision course with Manhattan and that due to a lack of warning, there is no time to evacuate the city.

Just when the gathered group prepares for the worst, the mysterious object lands in the middle of Central Park and after being surrounded by the military, produces a lone being from the interior of the spherical object. Just as Helen is about to make first contact with the being, he is shot by a nervous soldier, and before anyone knows what has happened, a giant mechanized being emerges from the sphere and incapacitates the assembled crowd with a sound wave. Just as the creature is about to take matters further he is called off by the wounded being.

The wounded being is taken to for medical care and the confounded scientists are amazed to find a human being underneath the organic suit that the being was wearing. The being grows very quickly and is soon a full grown adult.

Naturally these events are very concerning to the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Jackson (Kathy Bates). The Being identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and asks to speak with the leaders of the world about a very important matter. Jackson is convinced that Klaatu is the first wave of an invasion and orders him to be interrogated in order to learn his true mission.

Klaatu is able to escape and soon finds himself on the run with Helen and in doing so, learns about humanity. As his mission is revealed, it soon becomes a race against time for Klaatu and Helen to save the world from the greatest threat it has ever known.

The setup to the new film was very good and I was fortunate enough to see the film at an Imax screen which really enhanced the visuals of the film. Sadly there was not enough action for it to hold my attention as the best visuals in the film were largely shown in the trailer.

Once the events of the plot were put into motion, I found them to be very underwhelming, and the message of the film was lost in a series of muddled dialogue and a script lacking any really tension or drama. Klaatu is supposed to be a fish out of water that learns through Helen and Jacob about the other side of humanity, the one that is not about war, death, and destruction. Yet, thanks to the lack of chemistry between Reeves and the always good Connelly the audience is left with little to root for.
When the action finally comes it is very brief and restrained and not nearly enough to save the film, which stumbles to a very awkward and predictable finale.

I had hoped that this new version would be able to up the action promised in the first film and greater delve into the origins of Klaatu as well as the message of change he brought to humanity. Instead the film loses its way and the message becomes an afterthought leaving the audience with very little.
  
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009)
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009)
2009 | Horror
5
5.2 (6 Ratings)
Movie Rating
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...

In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.

The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.

The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.

Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
  
Lost At Christmas (2020)
Lost At Christmas (2020)
2020 | Comedy, Romance
4
5.0 (3 Ratings)
Movie Rating
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?

When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.

I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.

There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.

In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.

There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.

The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"

Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.

Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
  
In a Lonely Place (1950)
In a Lonely Place (1950)
1950 | Classics, Drama, Mystery
(0 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"“I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me.” One of the great lines of this story, again based on a novel by Dorothy B. Hughes. I have recommended this movie to many a brooding actor, one of whom called me the next day only to admonish me, “Why did you think I needed to see this film?” I’m a dame, so don’t crawl all over me, but I think men like this film because they can watch it and be tormented, with a glass of scotch in hand, and think about all the dames who ruined them. In a Lonely Place asks: Can violence be romantic? Are all men violent by nature? Do women drive men to be violent toward them? Do women sometimes desire men to be violent? The film touches disturbingly on the psychology of physical abuse, so women, beware. It seems to say: I beat you because I love you, because I can’t live without you. And if I can’t have you, if you want to leave me, I may have to kill you. The fact that a love-hate relationship was going on during the making of the film between the people who made it—director Nicholas Ray and Ray’s then wife, star Gloria Grahame—only gives it an added dimension. It’s interesting to note that In a Lonely Place was made during a time when that sort of behavior toward women was more acceptable, was even considered love. Read up on Bogart’s third marriage, to actress Mayo Methot. They nearly killed each other but, while married, were affectionately referred to as “the battling Bogarts.” Humphrey Bogart always played a tough guy on-screen. He had an inner violence that escaped in a knowing snarl, or a slap or two for poor Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon. This Bogart is pretty ugly. Was he playing himself? He’s the producer here, so it seems obvious he wanted to expose himself within the confines of the story. Bogart plays Dixon Steele, a washed-up, once-famous screenwriter. He’s a loner, he’s an alcoholic, and he’s also quite the snappy dresser—which I thought was a great touch. It’s a signal that he sets himself apart. He’s better than everyone else. He doesn’t have to follow the rules. He has his own code of behavior, and if you don’t like it, he’ll smash your face in. He’s someone who seems so far removed from his own actions that it’s hard to even root for him. Although he is a violent drunk, he never sees it that way. He’s noble. There’s some kind of masculine honor in Dix that Bogart and Ray seem to say is lacking in every other man in Hollywood. Ah, when men were men, and you could booze and brawl all night. Every sadist needs a masochist, and no one plays sexy-doomed better than Gloria Grahame. Her suffering was usually some sort of retribution. Lee Marvin throws hot coffee in her face in The Big Heat. She becomes a prostitute in the nightmare vision of Bedford Falls, Pottersville, in It’s a Wonderful Life. She dies in a plane crash after cheating on Dick Powell in The Bad and the Beautiful. She shines here. And could someone explain to me the undercurrent of her relationship with her female masseuse? “She beats me black and blue.” Hmmm . . . In In a Lonely Place, she is the wrong girl who moved into the wrong place and got hooked up with the wrong guy while running away from another wrong guy. Laurel Gray. Wonder if they took the name from Laurel Canyon, a winding road in LA. She’s never going to find happiness, especially with a man like Dix, and you know that from the minute you see her. The original ending of In a Lonely Place has Laurel strangled by Dix in the heat of their last argument as she attempts to leave him. He then calmly finishes his screenplay as the police come to arrest him. That’s Hollywood. In spite of killing his girlfriend, he finishes his screenplay. I would have preferred that, because I think that’s a reflection of what Ray and Bogart really felt. Instead, Ray got cold feet, and the ending, though tragic, lets Dix off the hook, leaving us to believe he will forever be in that lonely place. He’s the victim. Is there nobility in that? Maybe Ray was looking for his own happy ending. He and Grahame divorced in 1952. In 1956, Ray made Bigger Than Life, another film I love that explores a man driven to almost killing his wife."

Source
  
Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018)
Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018)
2018 | Adventure, Animation, Comedy
Kids growing up today don’t have the experience of a true arcade like some of us old folks do. Arcades as I knew them were loud (often smoke filled) establishments lined from one end to the other with all types of video games. Arcades these days reside mainly in pizza parlors with giant animatronic mice and consist mostly of ticket giving, skill-based games like skeeball and flippy coin games. Well, we now get a little bit of a nostalgic flashback as the Disney juggernaut does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet, a delightful story about friendship, self-confidence and of course arcade games.

Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.

Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.

Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.

The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.

Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.