Search
Beatriz (17 KP) rated Coraline (2009) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Coraline
Contains spoilers, click to show
Coraline is a stop-motion film that took almost 4 years to be done. It was released in 2009 and produced by Henry Selick also knows by producing The Nightmare Before Christmas.
Coraline was considered a childrens horror and ,in my opinion, that is the ONLY wrong thing about the film. I watched it as a child and it caused me nightmares for years. Its no children film. Its a genious animated horror film for sure, but not for + 6 years olds (the age that the cinemas said it was okay for people to watch)
Long story short Coraline is the story about a girl that doesnt have a close relationship with her parents that moves into the Pink Palace. Where she finds a door to a world where she has another mother and another father that are absolutely everything she ever wished for......until they are not. Until the Other Mother starts doing everything to sew buttons into Coralines eyes in order to trap her in the Other World with her.
This is by far on my top 3 favourite films and a 10 is unfair.
I loved the film so much I ended up researching for every fact and theories I could find. Here are one of the most interesting ones I've found ...
1 - The Ranft Brothers moving truck shows up at the Pink Palace towards the beginning of the film. A hidden detail appears on their truck in the form of
spray paint, which is a shout-out for stop-motion animation.
The two brothers are also a shout-out, though, specifically to Joe and Jerome Ranft, two brothers who were famous for their animation work, specifically
through Pixar.
2 - Two big reasons Selick pushed for stop-motion animation over live-action was that he felt a talking cat was too much of a gimmick in that context and the
film itself might end up being too scary.
3 - It is never specified in the film whether the real Bobinsky actually has a mouse circus. Selick believes he does not actually have one.
4 - Up to thirty animators worked on the film at any one time.
5 - The hat Coraline wears in several parts of the film is a Japanese school boy’s hat that she finds. While promoting a film in Japan, Selick had picked up one of
these for his son as a souvenir, but the boy never wore it. He figured he could at least make Coraline wear it.
Theories
1 - Wibie says that the well is so deep that some people say they "can see a sky full of stars in it" and The Other World is always night so the well could be another portal as in the end we see the cat disappearing in another portal so there are more portals than the small door.
So ... in the end of the film, did Coraline accidentally just returned the key to Beldam ?
2 - The Taffees that the actresses give Coraline have 3 dates in them that match the years that new people moved in the Pink Palace, which would match the 3 ghost children.
Coraline was considered a childrens horror and ,in my opinion, that is the ONLY wrong thing about the film. I watched it as a child and it caused me nightmares for years. Its no children film. Its a genious animated horror film for sure, but not for + 6 years olds (the age that the cinemas said it was okay for people to watch)
Long story short Coraline is the story about a girl that doesnt have a close relationship with her parents that moves into the Pink Palace. Where she finds a door to a world where she has another mother and another father that are absolutely everything she ever wished for......until they are not. Until the Other Mother starts doing everything to sew buttons into Coralines eyes in order to trap her in the Other World with her.
This is by far on my top 3 favourite films and a 10 is unfair.
I loved the film so much I ended up researching for every fact and theories I could find. Here are one of the most interesting ones I've found ...
1 - The Ranft Brothers moving truck shows up at the Pink Palace towards the beginning of the film. A hidden detail appears on their truck in the form of
spray paint, which is a shout-out for stop-motion animation.
The two brothers are also a shout-out, though, specifically to Joe and Jerome Ranft, two brothers who were famous for their animation work, specifically
through Pixar.
2 - Two big reasons Selick pushed for stop-motion animation over live-action was that he felt a talking cat was too much of a gimmick in that context and the
film itself might end up being too scary.
3 - It is never specified in the film whether the real Bobinsky actually has a mouse circus. Selick believes he does not actually have one.
4 - Up to thirty animators worked on the film at any one time.
5 - The hat Coraline wears in several parts of the film is a Japanese school boy’s hat that she finds. While promoting a film in Japan, Selick had picked up one of
these for his son as a souvenir, but the boy never wore it. He figured he could at least make Coraline wear it.
Theories
1 - Wibie says that the well is so deep that some people say they "can see a sky full of stars in it" and The Other World is always night so the well could be another portal as in the end we see the cat disappearing in another portal so there are more portals than the small door.
So ... in the end of the film, did Coraline accidentally just returned the key to Beldam ?
2 - The Taffees that the actresses give Coraline have 3 dates in them that match the years that new people moved in the Pink Palace, which would match the 3 ghost children.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Gateway to Dreamworld in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Gateway to Dreamworld
by Brenda Estacio
Rating: 3.5/5
My Summary: Jean and Brad have a wonderful life with wonderful kids. But through several awful things that happen to them, like the car accident that put Pete in a wheelchair for his life and the depression that Brad experienced from it, the family has slipped apart. Jason, the oldest son, goes up into his hideout in the Lighthouse to try to escape the stress of his family falling apart. While up there, a stroke of lightning hits the lighthouse and creates a magical Gateway from the real world to Dreamworld, a place that only the pure of heart can access in their dreams. Jason has to decide whether or not he wants to stay in Dreamworld for the rest of his life, where everything is perfect and nobody gets sick or dies, or whether he wants to stay in the real world with his family. When Jason finds out that his mom is pregnant and ill, he is sure she is going to die. Then Jason finds out that he can save his mom and heal his brother by taking his family to Dreamworld—but he has to do it before the Gateway closes up forever…
My thoughts: Gateway to Dreamworld is an interesting yet odd read. It’s fast paced, covering a whole beginning of a relationship, two births, a death and a few other major events in the first few chapters and moving through important story lines very quickly—almost too quickly. I wished the author had slowed down and taken more time developing the story line in the first 100 pages, rather than just telling it all so fast—the first ten chapters or so felt rushed, as if she was in a hurry to get it over with and explain it so she could move on to what she wanted to write about. The pdf that I read from was 358 pages, and it got really interesting on chapter 13, page 118. That being said, it wasn’t that I didn’t enjoy the first 100 pages, they were very interesting and showed the life of a realistic family.
The only thing about this book that I didn’t like was that it had what I call “happy-land” syndrome—everything is working out perfectly, or is resolved too quickly. The father slipped into depression, and it was totally expected and realistic, however he was jerked out of it too fast (Maybe only people who have experienced depression can testify, but it doesn’t go away that quickly—it takes months of talking, treatment, and sometimes medication, not one talk with a pastor and a few tears.). When the grandma died, the character’s reactions were realistic—but family members “got over it” so fast that it left me frowning. This was all in the earliest part of the book, again I felt that the author just wanted to be done with the explaining part so she could move onto the interesting part.
Plot: this was a science fiction book, and it’s been a long time since I’ve read a sci fi. I loved getting lost in the idea of Dreamworld and The Gateway and the fear of the Unknown was horrific. During one of the crucial moments at the end of the book I could feel my blood speed up as I read it. The end of this book was a bit of a shock, not at all what I expected. I’m not sure if I was disappointed or satisfied, but it was certainly intriguing.
Characters: I personally didn’t connect with the characters very well because they were two adults and two young children, however my favorite character would have to be Pete, the little brother who gets paralyzed. He’s such a brave kid, trusting of his brother, and loving to his parents.
The Writing: The writing seemed very formal—I don’t think there was a single contraction in the whole book, and the character’s lines were detailed, specific, honest, and humble— they almost felt like robots the way they were never greedy, never mean. The word that came to mind as I read it was “quaint,” because it was told from third person omniscient perspective, and there wasn’t a lot of dialogue.
Recommendation: I think ages 9-14 would enjoy this book a lot more than I did (not to say I didn’t) because of the young characters and the science fiction aspect. However, there were a few scenes of husband and wife relationship that were not detailed, but were not suitable for an eleven or twelve-year-old either. It’s hard to place a specific age on this book, but I will say that anyone who read and enjoyed Madeleine L'Engle’s Many Waters (A Wrinkle In Time series) will enjoy this book as well.
All in all, I immensely enjoyed this book and found myself needing to finish it, I couldn’t stop in the middle. It was highly addicting and exciting, and I look forward to more from this author.
Thank You to Brenda Estacio for the e-book to review!
~Haleyknitz
by Brenda Estacio
Rating: 3.5/5
My Summary: Jean and Brad have a wonderful life with wonderful kids. But through several awful things that happen to them, like the car accident that put Pete in a wheelchair for his life and the depression that Brad experienced from it, the family has slipped apart. Jason, the oldest son, goes up into his hideout in the Lighthouse to try to escape the stress of his family falling apart. While up there, a stroke of lightning hits the lighthouse and creates a magical Gateway from the real world to Dreamworld, a place that only the pure of heart can access in their dreams. Jason has to decide whether or not he wants to stay in Dreamworld for the rest of his life, where everything is perfect and nobody gets sick or dies, or whether he wants to stay in the real world with his family. When Jason finds out that his mom is pregnant and ill, he is sure she is going to die. Then Jason finds out that he can save his mom and heal his brother by taking his family to Dreamworld—but he has to do it before the Gateway closes up forever…
My thoughts: Gateway to Dreamworld is an interesting yet odd read. It’s fast paced, covering a whole beginning of a relationship, two births, a death and a few other major events in the first few chapters and moving through important story lines very quickly—almost too quickly. I wished the author had slowed down and taken more time developing the story line in the first 100 pages, rather than just telling it all so fast—the first ten chapters or so felt rushed, as if she was in a hurry to get it over with and explain it so she could move on to what she wanted to write about. The pdf that I read from was 358 pages, and it got really interesting on chapter 13, page 118. That being said, it wasn’t that I didn’t enjoy the first 100 pages, they were very interesting and showed the life of a realistic family.
The only thing about this book that I didn’t like was that it had what I call “happy-land” syndrome—everything is working out perfectly, or is resolved too quickly. The father slipped into depression, and it was totally expected and realistic, however he was jerked out of it too fast (Maybe only people who have experienced depression can testify, but it doesn’t go away that quickly—it takes months of talking, treatment, and sometimes medication, not one talk with a pastor and a few tears.). When the grandma died, the character’s reactions were realistic—but family members “got over it” so fast that it left me frowning. This was all in the earliest part of the book, again I felt that the author just wanted to be done with the explaining part so she could move onto the interesting part.
Plot: this was a science fiction book, and it’s been a long time since I’ve read a sci fi. I loved getting lost in the idea of Dreamworld and The Gateway and the fear of the Unknown was horrific. During one of the crucial moments at the end of the book I could feel my blood speed up as I read it. The end of this book was a bit of a shock, not at all what I expected. I’m not sure if I was disappointed or satisfied, but it was certainly intriguing.
Characters: I personally didn’t connect with the characters very well because they were two adults and two young children, however my favorite character would have to be Pete, the little brother who gets paralyzed. He’s such a brave kid, trusting of his brother, and loving to his parents.
The Writing: The writing seemed very formal—I don’t think there was a single contraction in the whole book, and the character’s lines were detailed, specific, honest, and humble— they almost felt like robots the way they were never greedy, never mean. The word that came to mind as I read it was “quaint,” because it was told from third person omniscient perspective, and there wasn’t a lot of dialogue.
Recommendation: I think ages 9-14 would enjoy this book a lot more than I did (not to say I didn’t) because of the young characters and the science fiction aspect. However, there were a few scenes of husband and wife relationship that were not detailed, but were not suitable for an eleven or twelve-year-old either. It’s hard to place a specific age on this book, but I will say that anyone who read and enjoyed Madeleine L'Engle’s Many Waters (A Wrinkle In Time series) will enjoy this book as well.
All in all, I immensely enjoyed this book and found myself needing to finish it, I couldn’t stop in the middle. It was highly addicting and exciting, and I look forward to more from this author.
Thank You to Brenda Estacio for the e-book to review!
~Haleyknitz
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Bloodrush (The Scarlet Star Trilogy #1) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
It is hard to describe this book purely because it appears to try to do too much.
It is set in an alternate universe where much is familiar but some things are very different.
It is a western, mostly set in an frontier town in Wyoming with the usual cast of restless townspeople, lone prospectors and ruthless land owners.
It is a fantasy involving faeries and magick
Yet in Galley's capable hands these elements are moulded into a seamless and thrilling story. All the different aspects fit together neatly and consistently producing a terrific platform for the characters and plot.
The main character is 13 year old Tonmerion Hark (known as Merion), son of the Prime Lord (think Prime Minister) of an alternate version of Victorian Britain. When his father is murdered by assailants unknown he is sent to his last remaining relative - an aunt living in Wyoming. Travelling with him is is best friend, a faerie called Rhin who is a fugitive from the rest of the Fae. Desperate to get back to London to find his father's killer and rescue his inheritance, Merion is instead drawn into conflict and underhand dealings in the small town of Fell Falls where is aunt is the undertaker.
The alternate universe is particularly striking. Very nearly everything is familiar but with important differences. The biggest of these is clearly that creatures such as the Fae exist (even if few people have ever seen one) but other changes include the natives of America, the Shohari, not being quite human and a lot of clever differences in London that really make it clear what kind of world Merion inhabits. The magick is also well thought out with a lot of thought and imagination given to its mechanics and its implications.
Galley's writing is a joy. It is clear and concise yet conveys the scene to the reader with impressive ease. The hot sun and gritty sand of the desert feel very real indeed. The characters are very well described and a great deal of care has been taken to express them. These are not cardboard cliches, which would have been easy. Merion is the hero but at heart is still a 13 year old boy, a boy who is impetuous and complains how life is unfair. All through the book there is a subtle undercurrent of wry humour.
What this whole book reminded me of - both in the writing and in the almost but not quite like our world setting - was a slightly darker Terry Pratchett. That is not an exaggeration, This book really is up there with the very best Discworld books in terms of story and inventiveness. It is darker in tone than anything Pratchett would write and not quite as laugh out loud funny in places but it is damn close.
The story itself unfolds at a fast pace - which is good because there is a lot to get through with several plots running intertwined through the narrative and sparking off each other as they twist and turn through every reveal. The final showdown is suitably climactic and the prose as well as the magick crackles off the page in a breathless rush towards the final chapter.
I do like to balance my reviews with maybe some small point that counts against the book but I really can't think of one for Bloodrush. It simply is a magnificent piece of work. You may not have known you wanted a alternate reality fantasy western but once you have read this you will wonder where the next one is coming from.
Very very highly recommended and the 5 star rating was easy to give.
Rated: Strong language so not for the youngest of young adults
It is set in an alternate universe where much is familiar but some things are very different.
It is a western, mostly set in an frontier town in Wyoming with the usual cast of restless townspeople, lone prospectors and ruthless land owners.
It is a fantasy involving faeries and magick
Yet in Galley's capable hands these elements are moulded into a seamless and thrilling story. All the different aspects fit together neatly and consistently producing a terrific platform for the characters and plot.
The main character is 13 year old Tonmerion Hark (known as Merion), son of the Prime Lord (think Prime Minister) of an alternate version of Victorian Britain. When his father is murdered by assailants unknown he is sent to his last remaining relative - an aunt living in Wyoming. Travelling with him is is best friend, a faerie called Rhin who is a fugitive from the rest of the Fae. Desperate to get back to London to find his father's killer and rescue his inheritance, Merion is instead drawn into conflict and underhand dealings in the small town of Fell Falls where is aunt is the undertaker.
The alternate universe is particularly striking. Very nearly everything is familiar but with important differences. The biggest of these is clearly that creatures such as the Fae exist (even if few people have ever seen one) but other changes include the natives of America, the Shohari, not being quite human and a lot of clever differences in London that really make it clear what kind of world Merion inhabits. The magick is also well thought out with a lot of thought and imagination given to its mechanics and its implications.
Galley's writing is a joy. It is clear and concise yet conveys the scene to the reader with impressive ease. The hot sun and gritty sand of the desert feel very real indeed. The characters are very well described and a great deal of care has been taken to express them. These are not cardboard cliches, which would have been easy. Merion is the hero but at heart is still a 13 year old boy, a boy who is impetuous and complains how life is unfair. All through the book there is a subtle undercurrent of wry humour.
What this whole book reminded me of - both in the writing and in the almost but not quite like our world setting - was a slightly darker Terry Pratchett. That is not an exaggeration, This book really is up there with the very best Discworld books in terms of story and inventiveness. It is darker in tone than anything Pratchett would write and not quite as laugh out loud funny in places but it is damn close.
The story itself unfolds at a fast pace - which is good because there is a lot to get through with several plots running intertwined through the narrative and sparking off each other as they twist and turn through every reveal. The final showdown is suitably climactic and the prose as well as the magick crackles off the page in a breathless rush towards the final chapter.
I do like to balance my reviews with maybe some small point that counts against the book but I really can't think of one for Bloodrush. It simply is a magnificent piece of work. You may not have known you wanted a alternate reality fantasy western but once you have read this you will wonder where the next one is coming from.
Very very highly recommended and the 5 star rating was easy to give.
Rated: Strong language so not for the youngest of young adults
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Things Fall Apart in Books
Jun 10, 2019
I was very confused by February’s ‘Penguin Reading Challenge’, as I don’t think I got one. Their February newsletter did recommend ‘Pride and Prejudice’ as a valentine read so potentially that may have been my classic recommendation for the month, however I’ve already read that one so I decided this month to go for January’s second recommendation of Chinua Achebe’s ‘Things fall apart’.
I don’t really know how to summarise this book without giving a lot away so I’m going to rely on Amazon –
Okonowo is the greatest warrior alive. His fame has spread like a bushfire in West Africa and he is one of the most powerful men of his clan.
But he also has a fiery temper. Determined not to be like his father, he refuses to show weakness to anyone – even if the only way he can master his feelings is with his fists. When outsiders threaten the traditions of his clan, Okonowo takes violent action. Will the great man’s dangerous pride eventually destroy him?
Again a Classic that did actually engross me. At the risk of sounding like a complete heel I was expecting to be lectured to by this book. Usually with Historical literature books of such high acclaim we encounter a lot of hidden and profound messages about our place in the world and how we treat others and the story can feel a bit dry. Also, with the other Historical fiction based in other countries I’ve read, I’ve appreciated the story, but they have essentially been based around problems exclusive to that era and culture, so it’s not really something I can relate to.
So oddly enough this little book set within a Nigerian tribe in the 1890s was actually quite relatable. Ok so maybe not many people can relate to a situation where you and a group of other men lead your foster son to a dark forest and kill him, but we can relate to making hard choices in life and letting down the ones we love.
You know as soon as you meet Okonowo that things are not going to go well for him, he is a prideful man quick to anger. He mistreats his wives and has high expectations of his children, and his intentions whilst well-meaning for his family are also misguided. Okonowo lives in a very superstitious village, and you can see that, after Okonowo does something that a close friend warns him against, that things will start to go bad from there. Things do not end well for Okonowo, as he doesn’t seem to learn or heed the warnings around him, but in the end you do start to sympathise with him a bit.
I think the best way to summarise the events in ‘Things fall apart’ is that whilst Okonowo’s problems are steered by his tribe’s beliefs and superstitions they are in essence problems that are relatable around the world.
I don’t really know how to summarise this book without giving a lot away so I’m going to rely on Amazon –
Okonowo is the greatest warrior alive. His fame has spread like a bushfire in West Africa and he is one of the most powerful men of his clan.
But he also has a fiery temper. Determined not to be like his father, he refuses to show weakness to anyone – even if the only way he can master his feelings is with his fists. When outsiders threaten the traditions of his clan, Okonowo takes violent action. Will the great man’s dangerous pride eventually destroy him?
Again a Classic that did actually engross me. At the risk of sounding like a complete heel I was expecting to be lectured to by this book. Usually with Historical literature books of such high acclaim we encounter a lot of hidden and profound messages about our place in the world and how we treat others and the story can feel a bit dry. Also, with the other Historical fiction based in other countries I’ve read, I’ve appreciated the story, but they have essentially been based around problems exclusive to that era and culture, so it’s not really something I can relate to.
So oddly enough this little book set within a Nigerian tribe in the 1890s was actually quite relatable. Ok so maybe not many people can relate to a situation where you and a group of other men lead your foster son to a dark forest and kill him, but we can relate to making hard choices in life and letting down the ones we love.
You know as soon as you meet Okonowo that things are not going to go well for him, he is a prideful man quick to anger. He mistreats his wives and has high expectations of his children, and his intentions whilst well-meaning for his family are also misguided. Okonowo lives in a very superstitious village, and you can see that, after Okonowo does something that a close friend warns him against, that things will start to go bad from there. Things do not end well for Okonowo, as he doesn’t seem to learn or heed the warnings around him, but in the end you do start to sympathise with him a bit.
I think the best way to summarise the events in ‘Things fall apart’ is that whilst Okonowo’s problems are steered by his tribe’s beliefs and superstitions they are in essence problems that are relatable around the world.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Elle (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The end of 2016 is just a few short weeks away. That being said, studios and filmmakers across the world are rolling out the few remaining big budget blockbusters and potential breakout independent masterpieces before year’s end. Among them is today’s film for your consideration. A film that has already received international acclaim when it premiered in competition for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival as well as several awards including the Gotham Independent Film Award For Best Actress, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, a New York Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress, and a Golden Globe Award Nomination for Best Actress for the film’s star, celebrated French film and stage actress Isabelle Huppert. The film would later go on to be selected as the French entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Elle’ ( meaning ‘her’ or ‘she’ in French) is an internationally co-produced psychological thriller directed by Paul Verhoeven. Yes, THAT Paul Verhoeven of ‘RoboCop’ , ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘Starship Troopers’, ‘Showgirls’, and ‘Total Recall’ fame. Hold on a second. Before you take his track record of recent works into account just hear me out. The film is based on the 2012 novel “Oh …. ” by French/Armenian author Philippe Djian which won the prix Interallie literary award for a novel written by journalist. ‘Elle’ is Verhoeven’s first French language film and his first film since 2006’s ‘Black Book’.
The film stars Isabelle Huppert as business woman Michele Leblanc. Mother, divorce, and head of a video game company who is viciously attacked and raped in her home late one night by an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask. Rather than report this to the police, she quickly ‘cleans up the mess’ and carries on with life as usual. The film also features several subplots that intricately weave into the film’s main storyline. Michele has a son Vincent (Jonas Bloquet) who is engaged to his unfaithful and domineering girlfriend Josie (Alice Isaac). Their relationship is strained due to Vincent’s lack of direction and his refusal to break off the relationship with Josie who is pregnant by the man she cheated on Vincent with. Michele’s relationship with her mother is also strained due to her mother’s narcissism and preference for younger men. A point of increasing animosity between Michelle and her mother is the fact that Michelle refuses her mother’s request to visit Michelle’s father, a convicted cereal killer, in prison. Meanwhile, Michele is carrying on an affair with Robert (Christian Berkele). The husband of her business partner and best friend Anna (Anne Consigny) while at the same time developing a fixation with Patrick (Laurent Lafitte). A banker and husband of Michele’s religiously devout neighbor Rebecca (Virginie Efira). All this, combined with the turmoil going on within Michele’s company make her reluctant to involve the police in anyway.
Soon Michele grows suspicious of all the men in her life and begins to ‘stalk in reverse’ those in particular might have the strongest motivation to do her harm. At first she suspects Kurt (Lucas Prisor). A particularly resentful employee of her company and even her ex-husband Richard (Charles Berling) who Michele inadvertently pepper-sprays while he was hiding outside her home checking on her safety. Despite pleas from Richard, her friends, and fearing another media frenzy similar to the one that occurred during her childhood when her father was arrested Michele continues with life as usual on the surface. In secret though, Michele is arming herself and using her company’s resources in an attempt to find her attacker and exact her own vision of retribution in this twisted cat and mouse game.
This film is by far one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last few years. In my opinion, we here in America don’t partake in enough of the films our neighbors in other countries have to offer. This film doesn’t ‘play it safe’. The story plays out in a realistic and believable manner. This is another one of those rare stories where there are really no ‘happy endings’ in the situation such as depicted in the film. It’s harsh, it’s in your face, it’s plausible, the innocent unfortunately suffer along with the guilty. Punishing the guilty is never enough and sometimes harms the victim(s) even more over the course of time. The film is rated R for depictions of physical and sexual violence and clocks in just past 2 hours. If you’re searching for a well written, well directed, and even better acted film. This psychological thriller is definitely for you. I expect this film will continue to garner more acclaim and even more awards. I’m giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Newcomer in Books
May 6, 2021
A fairly cute but rather unbelievable romance/mystery
When Letty Carnahan finds her sister Tanya dead, she knows she has to flee. Tanya warned her about this--if anything happened to her, Letty was to take Tanya's four-year-old daughter, Maya, and run. Letty has no idea where to go, but Tanya's left behind one clue: a magazine article with a motel circled. She and Maya arrive at the Murmuring Surf, a little motel in Florida, exhausted. Letty is convinced that Tanya's ex--Maya's father--a rich businessman is after them. But at "the Surf," the owner, Ava DeCurtis, takes a liking to Maya (and Letty). Despite the No Vacancy sign, she lets Letty and Maya stay in a tiny efficiency. But the rest of the hotel regulars regard Letty and Maya--the newcomers--with suspicion, as does Ava's son, local cop Joe DeCurtis. Joe is pretty convinced Letty is a fugitive and maybe even a murderer. As Letty tries to settle in and heal with Maya, she attempts to unravel exactly what happened to Tanya: and the more she finds out, the more it leads back to the Surf.
"Nobody could be trusted. Not after everything that had happened."
This is a cute, serviceable mystery-romance combo, albeit a slightly preposterous and unbelievable one. Letty flees Tanya's murder scene successfully, a wanted criminal, recognized by no one except Joe, an upstanding, rule-abiding cop who doesn't turn her in. And when the FBI enters the tale, their actions seem highly unreasonable, but... I guess we are supposed to believe anything in the name of love?
As for this love, it's complete insta-love and honestly, at times, a little cringe-worthy. Joe falls for Letty basically on sight and is rather pushy in trying to convince her to be in a relationship. (Hey this is crazy, we just met, I'm not turning you in, let's move in together... umm ok?) It was all a bit much.
Now, the old folks staying at the motel were a total trip. I could completely buy their crazy. And I loved Ava, who was a sweet, overly-trusting, but tough and brave mom, who just wanted to take care of everyone. (I didn't believe that Maya, who had endured great trauma, just sweetly sat and colored for hours each day while Letty worked--I'd like to meet that four-year-old!) The motel setting was spot on, and I desperately wanted to be at the beach while reading the entire book.
Overall, this one held my attention and I couldn't help but root for Letty (and Maya), but it probably won't stick with me. Joe often rubbed me the wrong way and some of the plot points had me rolling my eyes. Still, a cute summery read. 3 stars.
"Nobody could be trusted. Not after everything that had happened."
This is a cute, serviceable mystery-romance combo, albeit a slightly preposterous and unbelievable one. Letty flees Tanya's murder scene successfully, a wanted criminal, recognized by no one except Joe, an upstanding, rule-abiding cop who doesn't turn her in. And when the FBI enters the tale, their actions seem highly unreasonable, but... I guess we are supposed to believe anything in the name of love?
As for this love, it's complete insta-love and honestly, at times, a little cringe-worthy. Joe falls for Letty basically on sight and is rather pushy in trying to convince her to be in a relationship. (Hey this is crazy, we just met, I'm not turning you in, let's move in together... umm ok?) It was all a bit much.
Now, the old folks staying at the motel were a total trip. I could completely buy their crazy. And I loved Ava, who was a sweet, overly-trusting, but tough and brave mom, who just wanted to take care of everyone. (I didn't believe that Maya, who had endured great trauma, just sweetly sat and colored for hours each day while Letty worked--I'd like to meet that four-year-old!) The motel setting was spot on, and I desperately wanted to be at the beach while reading the entire book.
Overall, this one held my attention and I couldn't help but root for Letty (and Maya), but it probably won't stick with me. Joe often rubbed me the wrong way and some of the plot points had me rolling my eyes. Still, a cute summery read. 3 stars.