Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
After having spent the first two films focused on the common story of Dracula with a comedic spin and family focused story line. Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation introduces the tale of Van Helsing and his family who have spent ages trying to exterminate Dracula and all the monsters of the world.
After centuries of running the Hotel Transylvania and escaping extinction, Drac (Adam Sandler), his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez), and crew of oddball and lovable friends and family embark on their first vacation aboard a monstrous filled cruise ship headed for the lost city of Atlantis by way of the Bermuda Triangle. Feeling lonely, ready to find love again, Drac ends up ‘zinging’ with the human cruise director, Ericka (Kathryn Hahn). As you may recall from the first installment, to ‘zing’ only happens once in a monster’s life when two individuals first meet eyes, they find their true love and in that moment are meant to spend the rest of their lives together. Attempting to keep their rendezvous and connection a secret from Mavis, Drac decides to recruit his loyal subjects to help him distract his daughter. As the ship starts narrowing in on the Las Vegas-esque lost city of Atlantis, Mavis grows very suspicious of what her father is up to. She decides to start tracking his every move and realizes their vacation is not all it’s cracked up to be.
From the imaginative mind of Director Genndy Tartokovsky. HT3 is dazzling animated film that brings all the laughs, and humor that one can expect when Adam Sandler and his motley crew of usual suspects are involved. When you involve such talent as Steven Duscemi, Adam Sandberg, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon, Kevin James, and Mel Brooks to helm the character voices, it’s guaranteed to be a fun filled ride that will keep you laughing from one moment to the next. A wise cracking, witty summer treat that teaches the importance of seeing past our differences and accepting people/monster’s for who they are and realize we’re not so different to begin with.
After centuries of running the Hotel Transylvania and escaping extinction, Drac (Adam Sandler), his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez), and crew of oddball and lovable friends and family embark on their first vacation aboard a monstrous filled cruise ship headed for the lost city of Atlantis by way of the Bermuda Triangle. Feeling lonely, ready to find love again, Drac ends up ‘zinging’ with the human cruise director, Ericka (Kathryn Hahn). As you may recall from the first installment, to ‘zing’ only happens once in a monster’s life when two individuals first meet eyes, they find their true love and in that moment are meant to spend the rest of their lives together. Attempting to keep their rendezvous and connection a secret from Mavis, Drac decides to recruit his loyal subjects to help him distract his daughter. As the ship starts narrowing in on the Las Vegas-esque lost city of Atlantis, Mavis grows very suspicious of what her father is up to. She decides to start tracking his every move and realizes their vacation is not all it’s cracked up to be.
From the imaginative mind of Director Genndy Tartokovsky. HT3 is dazzling animated film that brings all the laughs, and humor that one can expect when Adam Sandler and his motley crew of usual suspects are involved. When you involve such talent as Steven Duscemi, Adam Sandberg, Fran Drescher, Molly Shannon, Kevin James, and Mel Brooks to helm the character voices, it’s guaranteed to be a fun filled ride that will keep you laughing from one moment to the next. A wise cracking, witty summer treat that teaches the importance of seeing past our differences and accepting people/monster’s for who they are and realize we’re not so different to begin with.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Lucy (Geraldine Viswanathan) works in a very well-known art gallery owned by the ever so extraordinary Eva Woolf (Bernadette Peters). It has been a dream of hers since she was very young to work as a curator in a gallery and she is starting as an assistant at “The Woolf”.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Big Short (2015) in Movies
Apr 19, 2020
Gets Better On Each Rewatch
Most of you reading this review remember the last time the U.S. had a downturn in it's economy - it was 2008 and the downturn was caused by a bubble that burst in the housing market. Michael Lewis' (author of MONEYBALL) book THE BIG SHORT attempted to explain what happend in lay man's terms. This books was considered "unfilmable" until the most unlikeliest of artists stepped in to make a wonderfully crafted and educational film that was also entertaining.
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
I'm a little sad to say that I spent real money on this film. It wasn't showing at my Cineworld and the chance of a second stage release with the summer holidays approaching was unlikely. Luckily one of my Showcase Cinemas had it on and I ventured out into the real world to see it.
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
May 23, 2017
Trigger Warning
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, Thirteen Reasons Why was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about Thirteen Reasons Why, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether Thirteen Reasons Why is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that Thirteen Reasons Why will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, Thirteen Reasons Why was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about Thirteen Reasons Why, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether Thirteen Reasons Why is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that Thirteen Reasons Why will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i>, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Recently filmed as a thirteen-part Netflix drama executively produced by Selena Gomez, <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> was the first novel by the award-winning author, Jay Asher. It is the type of book readers will either love or hate, but it should definitely come with a warning. This story is NOT an accurate representation of depression and suicide.
Yes, suicide. A teenaged girl has committed suicide, shocking everyone who knew her. No one could understand why, but thirteen people are going to find out. Clay Jensen is the ninth person to receive a box of thirteen audiotapes from Hannah Baker. However, Hannah died two weeks ago. As she premeditated taking her life, Hannah recorded thirteen stories involving people from her school that caused her to snowball into deep depression and despair. Desperate to find out why his name features in Hannah’s story, Clay begins listening to the tapes in order, putting together the events that led to Hannah’s death.
What follows is a heart-breaking story showing the impact individuals have on other people’s lives, often without realising it. In some cases, the characters only played a minor role in Hannah’s life, whereas others caused significant damage. The saddest thing is, Clay could have helped Hannah, but she had pushed him away.
At times, Hannah seemed like the horrible person, calling all these people out on petty little things, but these things, along with the more horrible ones, all built up to create a life that did not feel worth living. It is eye opening how much a small action, comment or rumour can so drastically alter someone’s future.
Bearing in mind that depression affects everyone differently and has numerous causes, some readers may feel disgusted at Hannah’s extreme action, but this is the fault of the author. Jay Asher fails to completely describe the emotional torment that Hannah felt, and only someone who may have been through a similar situation, or worse, will fully be able to understand the impact everything has had on her mental health.
As Hannah beleaguers her listeners, the thirteen people start to feel like the victims rather than the “attackers”, which is most probably not what the author was intending. Now, these people will have to live their lives believing they caused a girl to commit suicide when really they were only 1/13th of the reason. Although, before criticising this novel, keep in mind it is a work of fiction.
What is most painful about <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i>, is not Hannah’s plight, but the reaction Clay has to hearing Hannah’s story. Unlike the other people Hannah accuses, Clay is not one of her antagonists; all Hannah wants to do is to say sorry.
It is up to the reader to judge whether <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> is worthy of praise or not. Those without an understanding of depression may dislike it on account of misunderstanding Hannah’s reasons, whereas others may feel insulted that she killed herself over things that could have been eased had she told someone. Personally, I understand where Hannah is coming from, and although I would not go to the extremes Hannah did, I do not think she was selfish or stupid or any other insult that may befall her.
The reason I give this book a good rating lies in the quality of writing. Asher seamlessly alternates between two narratives – Hannah’s story and Clay’s reaction and reflection. Although the author may not have clearly expressed Hannah’s emotions, he successful emphasises the grief and despair Clay feels listening to the cassettes. My main concern is that <i>Thirteen Reasons Why</i> will only be short lived. Audiotapes were already obsolete when the book was published, but soon will there be any new readers who know what a tape is?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
