Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated After the End in Books
Jun 25, 2019
Max and Pip have a deep, untenable bond and a strong marriage that they feel is sealed by fate. But when their nearly three-year-old son, Dylan, gets sick, everything they know changes. Dylan has a brain tumor, and now Pip spends her days in the PICU, while Max tries to juggle work and being strong for his wife and child. Then, the couple receives the worst of all news: the chemo isn't helping Dylan's tumor, and the doctors feel Dylan's condition is terminal. Suddenly, Max and Pip find themselves on opposite sides--each wanting different medical treatment for their beloved boy.
Clare Mackintosh offers us a beautiful, poignant, and heartbreaking book based on her life experiences, having lost her own son. Knowing this makes the book even more tender and real, as each word is based on a kernel of truth. Reading this book isn't always easy--as a parent, my heart digested these words and put myself in the shoes of Max and Pip. This book makes you think, and it makes you so incredibly grateful for your own life, wanting to snuggle your own children and hold them dear.
"How can my son be a breath away from death, when evidence of his life is all around me? When I feel him in my heart, as surely as when I carried him in my womb?"
The story is one of loss, yes, but it's also a love story: Max and Pip, Dylan and his family, and more. We are introduced to Dylan's family and also to Dylan's doctor, Leila, whom I really liked. Leila has her own struggles. Her mom, Habibeh, is visiting, but won't leave the house, preferring to watch QVC and cook endlessly for her daughter. (Habibeh is a trip; she's awesome.) The decision of Dylan's fate falls on Leila's shoulders first: a lot for a young doctor to bear. We get the story through her eyes and then each of Dylan's parents. As a mom, I felt drawn to Pip, but I liked how we got both Pip and Max's perspectives. Each only wants what is best for their son--and, at first, each feels they are doing the right thing.
"However long you spend with someone, however well you think you know them, they can still be a stranger to you."
Mackintosh is best known for her thrillers, and, this book is just as well-written as those. And, interestingly enough, she throws in a bit of a twist here, too. I won't spoil it, per se, but will tell you that this book is a fascinating exploration of choices, allowing you to think about life and the various paths that everyone can take. It's a sad book, yes, but lovely too--a tribute to parents, medical professionals, and to the children we love so much. It's a reminder to cherish those we hold dear and that life can be short but beautiful, no matter which way it may turn out.
Overall, even though I found this difficult to read at times, I'm really glad I did. I was reminded, yet again, what a good writer Clare Mackintosh is. I'm so incredibly sorry she lost her son, and I'm in such awe that she could turn that loss into such a lovely book. I highly recommend this--it's a beautiful exploration of life's different paths and what fate can bring us.
Clare Mackintosh offers us a beautiful, poignant, and heartbreaking book based on her life experiences, having lost her own son. Knowing this makes the book even more tender and real, as each word is based on a kernel of truth. Reading this book isn't always easy--as a parent, my heart digested these words and put myself in the shoes of Max and Pip. This book makes you think, and it makes you so incredibly grateful for your own life, wanting to snuggle your own children and hold them dear.
"How can my son be a breath away from death, when evidence of his life is all around me? When I feel him in my heart, as surely as when I carried him in my womb?"
The story is one of loss, yes, but it's also a love story: Max and Pip, Dylan and his family, and more. We are introduced to Dylan's family and also to Dylan's doctor, Leila, whom I really liked. Leila has her own struggles. Her mom, Habibeh, is visiting, but won't leave the house, preferring to watch QVC and cook endlessly for her daughter. (Habibeh is a trip; she's awesome.) The decision of Dylan's fate falls on Leila's shoulders first: a lot for a young doctor to bear. We get the story through her eyes and then each of Dylan's parents. As a mom, I felt drawn to Pip, but I liked how we got both Pip and Max's perspectives. Each only wants what is best for their son--and, at first, each feels they are doing the right thing.
"However long you spend with someone, however well you think you know them, they can still be a stranger to you."
Mackintosh is best known for her thrillers, and, this book is just as well-written as those. And, interestingly enough, she throws in a bit of a twist here, too. I won't spoil it, per se, but will tell you that this book is a fascinating exploration of choices, allowing you to think about life and the various paths that everyone can take. It's a sad book, yes, but lovely too--a tribute to parents, medical professionals, and to the children we love so much. It's a reminder to cherish those we hold dear and that life can be short but beautiful, no matter which way it may turn out.
Overall, even though I found this difficult to read at times, I'm really glad I did. I was reminded, yet again, what a good writer Clare Mackintosh is. I'm so incredibly sorry she lost her son, and I'm in such awe that she could turn that loss into such a lovely book. I highly recommend this--it's a beautiful exploration of life's different paths and what fate can bring us.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, youâre going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the âFather of the Atomic Bombâ, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolanâs latest epic is a rarity in todayâs Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable whoâs who of âAâ list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his âmore internal than externalâ performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, itâs a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their âAâ game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good olâ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late â70âs and early â80âs) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performerâŚandâŚwait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
OhâŚand donât forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimerâs wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two âAâ list actors to the âA+ listâ.
But this film is more than just itâs performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. Itâs effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting andâŚ.with a 3 hour run timeâŚdoes drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is âas good as it getsâ by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the âFather of the Atomic Bombâ, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolanâs latest epic is a rarity in todayâs Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable whoâs who of âAâ list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his âmore internal than externalâ performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, itâs a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their âAâ game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good olâ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late â70âs and early â80âs) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performerâŚandâŚwait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
OhâŚand donât forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimerâs wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two âAâ list actors to the âA+ listâ.
But this film is more than just itâs performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. Itâs effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting andâŚ.with a 3 hour run timeâŚdoes drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is âas good as it getsâ by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Hello Again in Books
Dec 26, 2018 (Updated Dec 26, 2018)
Held my Interest (1 more)
Interesting Premise
Not enough character backstory (2 more)
Pacing all over the place
Not very paranormal
Not Very Paranormal
I love the premise of Hello Again by Stan Schatt. I'm very much into ghosts, so I knew I had to read this book. When it came up for review, I knew I had to read it. Unfortunately, this book was just okay, nothing special.
The plot for Hello Again sounded interesting enough. I loved the idea of a guy getting texts from his dead girlfriend. However, there just wasn't enough of the paranormal aspect for me which was disappointing. Personally, I wouldn't really label Hello Again as a paranormal read at all. It was fun to read about though. I kept trying to figure out who was sending the texts from Amber's phone after she died especially since they were coming from her apartment. I also found it interesting to read about Bill's cafe and how he was struggling to get the money to renew the lease. Anyway, the story did take awhile to get going before he meets his girlfriend, Amber Love, at a speed dating event. Amber is very mysterious and doesn't reveal too much of herself to Ben. I found their relationship to be a bit forced and stagnant myself. They hadn't even been on very many dates before she is blown up by a car bomb. What I found weird was that Ben never even googled Amber's name when he found out she had given him a false last name. If it were me, this day in age, I would have been googling her as soon as I had free time. I also felt like we need more information about how Ben found out about Amber's funeral. I will say that by the time this book ended, all of my questions were answered. There are no cliff hangers, and I felt like what was supposed to be the plot twist was too predictable.
I never really connected to any of the characters in Hello Again, and as much as I tried, I never really found myself caring for any of them. I would have liked a bit more backstory into Ben and Amber. I would have liked it if Ben and Amber's relationship had a chance to flourish instead of them just going on about 3 or 4 dates. I would have even liked more backstory for Josh, the psychic. It was hard to connect to these characters when I didn't know much about them. Oh, one of the characters is described as looking like a terrorist and of Middle Eastern descent. I found this to be stereotypical and thought that some readers may find this offensive.
The pacing for Hello Again starts out slow. About halfway through, the pacing does pick up, but I feel it does go too fast in many places which left scratching my head wondering what had happened. Sometimes, I had to go back to see if I missed anything which I didn't. The pacing just didn't flow very well in the second half. However, this book did hold my attention until the very end though, but I wasn't in a rush to finish it. Luckily, it's a short read.
Trigger warnings for Hello Again include some profanity, a couple of sex scenes although they aren't graphic, violence, murder, and alcoholic drinking.
All in all, Hello Again was an okay albeit disappointing read for me. I had been expecting more of a paranormal read which this really wasn't. I could never connect to the characters which left me feeling empty. However, I did find that this book held my attention on the plus side. Because it held my attention and was a short read, I would recommend Hello Again by Stan Schatt for those aged 18+ who are looking for a short read.
--
(A special thank you to Xpresso Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of Hello Again in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for Hello Again sounded interesting enough. I loved the idea of a guy getting texts from his dead girlfriend. However, there just wasn't enough of the paranormal aspect for me which was disappointing. Personally, I wouldn't really label Hello Again as a paranormal read at all. It was fun to read about though. I kept trying to figure out who was sending the texts from Amber's phone after she died especially since they were coming from her apartment. I also found it interesting to read about Bill's cafe and how he was struggling to get the money to renew the lease. Anyway, the story did take awhile to get going before he meets his girlfriend, Amber Love, at a speed dating event. Amber is very mysterious and doesn't reveal too much of herself to Ben. I found their relationship to be a bit forced and stagnant myself. They hadn't even been on very many dates before she is blown up by a car bomb. What I found weird was that Ben never even googled Amber's name when he found out she had given him a false last name. If it were me, this day in age, I would have been googling her as soon as I had free time. I also felt like we need more information about how Ben found out about Amber's funeral. I will say that by the time this book ended, all of my questions were answered. There are no cliff hangers, and I felt like what was supposed to be the plot twist was too predictable.
I never really connected to any of the characters in Hello Again, and as much as I tried, I never really found myself caring for any of them. I would have liked a bit more backstory into Ben and Amber. I would have liked it if Ben and Amber's relationship had a chance to flourish instead of them just going on about 3 or 4 dates. I would have even liked more backstory for Josh, the psychic. It was hard to connect to these characters when I didn't know much about them. Oh, one of the characters is described as looking like a terrorist and of Middle Eastern descent. I found this to be stereotypical and thought that some readers may find this offensive.
The pacing for Hello Again starts out slow. About halfway through, the pacing does pick up, but I feel it does go too fast in many places which left scratching my head wondering what had happened. Sometimes, I had to go back to see if I missed anything which I didn't. The pacing just didn't flow very well in the second half. However, this book did hold my attention until the very end though, but I wasn't in a rush to finish it. Luckily, it's a short read.
Trigger warnings for Hello Again include some profanity, a couple of sex scenes although they aren't graphic, violence, murder, and alcoholic drinking.
All in all, Hello Again was an okay albeit disappointing read for me. I had been expecting more of a paranormal read which this really wasn't. I could never connect to the characters which left me feeling empty. However, I did find that this book held my attention on the plus side. Because it held my attention and was a short read, I would recommend Hello Again by Stan Schatt for those aged 18+ who are looking for a short read.
--
(A special thank you to Xpresso Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of Hello Again in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Hairstyles Game.s for Girl.s â Hair Salon Makeover
Lifestyle and Games
App
*** Use your creativity to create beautiful hairstyles like a professional hair stylist! *** **...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a âFather Tedâ film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesnât have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and âpep-pillsâ that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (RenĂŠe Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at Londonâs âTalk of the Townâ. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (âVictoriaâsâ Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judyâs mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and weâll come to that), this is 100% the âRenĂŠe Zellweger showâ. Itâs an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garlandâs mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesnât get an Oscar nomination for this then Iâll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! Iâll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in âStan and Ollieâ!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than weâre used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest itâs neither. Thereâs been a curious split in the last year between films like âBohemian Rhapsodyâ, which were biopics with music, to âRocketmanâ which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
âJudyâ canât be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesnât come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garlandâs extensive career, the âyoung Judyâ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, itâs a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans â Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garlandâs extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a âFather Tedâ film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesnât have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and âpep-pillsâ that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (RenĂŠe Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at Londonâs âTalk of the Townâ. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (âVictoriaâsâ Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judyâs mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and weâll come to that), this is 100% the âRenĂŠe Zellweger showâ. Itâs an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garlandâs mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesnât get an Oscar nomination for this then Iâll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! Iâll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in âStan and Ollieâ!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than weâre used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest itâs neither. Thereâs been a curious split in the last year between films like âBohemian Rhapsodyâ, which were biopics with music, to âRocketmanâ which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
âJudyâ canât be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesnât come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garlandâs extensive career, the âyoung Judyâ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, itâs a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans â Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garlandâs extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
The Vicious & The Virile VII: Seven Freaky Stories for Adults
Book
A collection of short horror stories, The Vicious and The Virile VII offers a captivating...
Dark Fantasy Short Story Collection
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Banewreaker in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life â Banewreaker Will Make You Feel Bad for Sauron
Contains spoilers, click to show
Very few fantasy fans can get away with admitting that they arenât all that big into sweeping, high epic fantasy Ă la Lord of the Rings or the Pern stories or everything that Terry Brooks writes. Many non-fantasy fans, however, can point to these tales as examples of why they arenât into fantasy. Like it or not, itâs hard not to see the latter groupâs point, as a lot of high fantasy is riddled with confusing terminology, rehashed stories, and genre clichĂŠs. This is not to say that these stories are bad, per sĂŠ, just that they can easily turn off readers who arenât in the right kind of crowd.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Careyâs two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as itâs sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichĂŠs piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichĂŠs. This story is clichĂŠs. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is whatâs going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that theyâve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, itâs Lord of the Rings from Sauronâs point of view.
Itâs not a riff, though. Itâs not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that itâs mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was âthe quickening of the flesh,â which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, weâll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if youâve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that theyâre the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesnât create anything because heâs busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didnât want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesnât want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomaneâs wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satorisâs few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one sideâs view of evil is anotherâs view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled âevilâ character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, sheâs not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another manâs wife or another countryâs momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if itâs a flaw, itâs an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldnât be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, thatâs the point. This is a story of clichĂŠs, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichĂŠs and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their âevilâ enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, youâre still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasnât stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I canât claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-loverâs time â especially if youâve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Careyâs two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as itâs sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichĂŠs piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichĂŠs. This story is clichĂŠs. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is whatâs going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that theyâve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, itâs Lord of the Rings from Sauronâs point of view.
Itâs not a riff, though. Itâs not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that itâs mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was âthe quickening of the flesh,â which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, weâll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if youâve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that theyâre the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesnât create anything because heâs busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didnât want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesnât want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomaneâs wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satorisâs few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one sideâs view of evil is anotherâs view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled âevilâ character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, sheâs not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another manâs wife or another countryâs momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if itâs a flaw, itâs an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldnât be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, thatâs the point. This is a story of clichĂŠs, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichĂŠs and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their âevilâ enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, youâre still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasnât stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I canât claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-loverâs time â especially if youâve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Stunning
The king of the Kaiju, Godzilla, has had a very chequered cinematic history. From the classic original Japanese films to Roland Emmerichâs 1998 disaster, the famous beast hasnât always been given the respect deserved of such an iconic monster.
Now, 16 years after Emmerichâs critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this yearâs reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monsterâs appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the filmâs primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwardsâ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics â of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors donât is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzillaâs inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrowâs Jurassic World set to be released in June next year â that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Now, 16 years after Emmerichâs critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this yearâs reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monsterâs appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the filmâs primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwardsâ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics â of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors donât is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzillaâs inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrowâs Jurassic World set to be released in June next year â that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
I am most familiar with the tale of the Phantom of the Opera from the musical of that name. It is likely different from the book by Gaston Leroux. I havenÂt read the original novel that inspired the opera and RoseBlood itself in years. As a result, I am sure that I miss some nods to the original or nuances that people more familiar with the story will understand.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious  but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is ThornÂs guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
RuneÂs first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youÂve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change  it was interesting but as I was reading I didnÂt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
Our main character, Rune has a unique relationship with music. Certain works, usually arias written for women, speak to her and make their home in her soul. Upon hearing the soaring notes, she is immediately overtaken by the need to sing and expel the music. When she was younger and her father accompanied her on the violin, those moments were glorious  but they did not last. Her father became ill and then died, leaving her with no accompaniment and the music began to cage her. No longer could she just release the notes inside her, but they took something with them and left her feeling ill. If the piece spoke to her she had no choice but let it overwhelm her vocal cords and release.
The Phantom lives in his classic dark dwelling beneath the school, which was once an opera house. He travels the underground river via a boat, has various neglected instruments strewn about and is friendly with a red swan. Just your normal phantom behavior. Pretty early on, we learn that who we first believe to be this iteration of the phantom is not the one from the book and are introduced to the Phantom himself. The Phantom is ThornÂs guardian and teacher, although he has been sickly lately and Thorn has been taking care of him.
There is an interesting addition in this version of auras and chakras. Rune, Thorn and the Phantom are able to see the music as it fills the air with colour. The Phantom even taught Thorn how to harness that auric energy from emotions, and the even more powerful music, to do things like manipulating feelings and thoughts. Together, Thorn and the Phantom plan to alienate Rune from her teachers and classmates until she discovers the lair surrenders to the darkness and they hope she gives up her music to them.
RuneÂs first day at RoseBlood does not go exactly as she hoped, but her new friend and peer advisor, Sunny introduces her to Jackson Reynolds. My immediate feelings about the two were that they were playing this retelling's version of Meg and Raoul, whether that is, in fact, true you shall have to discover by reading the book. Her relationship with her Phantom parallels that of the original, as he helps her to calm the music inside her.
Although the author provides reasoning later on for their immediate connection and trust, it still feels like insta-love. To know someone for only a short while and frequently consider abandoning or betraying everything youÂve ever known and believed in for the past decade. That is intense and not something people could just easily give up on whether it is the right way or not.
While I did enjoy this book, I probably would not go out and purchase a copy for myself. In order to make this the next chapter of the Phantom of the Opera, rather than a re-telling the author added some different aspects to the story that were not in the original. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this change  it was interesting but as I was reading I didnÂt feel or believe that it was as well thought out as it should have been. I think that the idea of the story was a lot more intriguing than the actual execution of it ended up being.
After the conclusion of the book, there is a note from the author that describes what inspired her to write this version of the story. It shows where she got each of her ideas and the amount of thought that went into them. As I stated before, I see the merit of each addition (and admire the research that went into them) but it just seemed to be a little too much added and it became unwieldy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) Jul 1, 2019
ClareR (5726 KP) Jul 1, 2019