Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Space Between Us (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Gardner Elliot (Asa Butterfield) is a 16 year old boy who has never set foot on Earth. His mother found out she was pregnant on while on a mission to live on Mars for four years. Just after arriving on the red planet his mother gave birth and then sadly passed away. Since his birth was an unplanned surprise to his mother, NASA and Genesis, the private company that made the trip to Mars possible, they all decide to keep his existence a classified secret. So for the next 16 years he was raised on Mars by a revolving crew of a dozen or so scientist who stayed on the space station called East Texas. Gardner relishes the chance to be known and to travel to Earth. On Mars all he has is his self-proclaimed best friend is an artificial intelligent robot named Centaur (voiced by Peter Chelsom) and a couple of people who he can call friends. One is Kendra (Carla Gugino), a mother figure who watches over and tries to protect him. The other is Tulsa (Britt Robertson), a teenage school girl from Earth, who he chats online with every chance he gets and desperately wants to meet.
Gardner finds a box of his mother’s things in a storage room and a photo of who he believes to be his father. His urge to go to Earth and meet his father and Tulsa is to the point he will do almost anything. Kendra seeing the pain that Gardner is in she decides to reach out to Genesis Director Chen (BD Wong) and founder Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) and requests they allow him to come to Earth. Shepherd is against it. Pointing out that, due to the reduced gravity of Mars, Gardner’s bones will be weaker and more brittle and his heart will be enlarged. Almost assuredly making living on Earth impossible. Determined to make it to Gardner goes through painful operations to strengthen his bones and intense training to improve his muscles. After 16 years he is finally allowed to travel to Earth. Only to be quarantined and battered with tests upon arrival. Undeterred, he breaks out of the facility and heads out to find Tulsa. He finds her and convinces her to help him find his father. So they head out cross country to find his family and seem to be finding love along the way. But Kendra and Shepherd are hot on their heels. They rush to track Gardner down before his health deteriorates and is unable to survive in Earth’s environment.
The Sci-Fi story is a heartwarming one in The Space Between Us. It is a futuristic love story of two teens who are worlds apart, literally in this instance, but both find the one person in the universe who is meant for them. Butterfield does a good job of playing Gardner and showing how someone removed from this world can be awkward and out of place but also be amazingly honest and forthright. Robertson performance is okay as the tough product of a foster system teen that has a rough exterior but longs for a family. The love story and interaction between these two characters is definitely the bright spot. The rest of the cast is good and the overall story had some original concepts, such as the first human born on Mars. But there are times that are a little cheesy for my personal taste. Also the ending in my opinion was predictable and a forgone conclusion. How the film was presented visually was hit and miss for me. There would be beautiful shots of mountain passes, the ocean or the desert that really captured the beauty of Earth as if they were being seen for the first time. Then there were times when the shot was blurry and you could tell the people, vehicles or aircraft was out of place. The shots of space were very much the same some good some bad.
Overall the movie was good but not really something I would want to go back and see again. It definitely had the feel of a movie you could take the whole family to, very wholesome. I wish it was more constant visually.
Gardner finds a box of his mother’s things in a storage room and a photo of who he believes to be his father. His urge to go to Earth and meet his father and Tulsa is to the point he will do almost anything. Kendra seeing the pain that Gardner is in she decides to reach out to Genesis Director Chen (BD Wong) and founder Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) and requests they allow him to come to Earth. Shepherd is against it. Pointing out that, due to the reduced gravity of Mars, Gardner’s bones will be weaker and more brittle and his heart will be enlarged. Almost assuredly making living on Earth impossible. Determined to make it to Gardner goes through painful operations to strengthen his bones and intense training to improve his muscles. After 16 years he is finally allowed to travel to Earth. Only to be quarantined and battered with tests upon arrival. Undeterred, he breaks out of the facility and heads out to find Tulsa. He finds her and convinces her to help him find his father. So they head out cross country to find his family and seem to be finding love along the way. But Kendra and Shepherd are hot on their heels. They rush to track Gardner down before his health deteriorates and is unable to survive in Earth’s environment.
The Sci-Fi story is a heartwarming one in The Space Between Us. It is a futuristic love story of two teens who are worlds apart, literally in this instance, but both find the one person in the universe who is meant for them. Butterfield does a good job of playing Gardner and showing how someone removed from this world can be awkward and out of place but also be amazingly honest and forthright. Robertson performance is okay as the tough product of a foster system teen that has a rough exterior but longs for a family. The love story and interaction between these two characters is definitely the bright spot. The rest of the cast is good and the overall story had some original concepts, such as the first human born on Mars. But there are times that are a little cheesy for my personal taste. Also the ending in my opinion was predictable and a forgone conclusion. How the film was presented visually was hit and miss for me. There would be beautiful shots of mountain passes, the ocean or the desert that really captured the beauty of Earth as if they were being seen for the first time. Then there were times when the shot was blurry and you could tell the people, vehicles or aircraft was out of place. The shots of space were very much the same some good some bad.
Overall the movie was good but not really something I would want to go back and see again. It definitely had the feel of a movie you could take the whole family to, very wholesome. I wish it was more constant visually.
Simple Home Health Exercises: Easy fitness workout
Health & Fitness and Photo & Video
App
Home exercises will give you simple and easy fitness workouts videos which you can try at home. We...
Hey Duggee: The Big Outdoor App
Games and Education
App
**** As seen on Nick Jr. **** Welcome to the Big Outdoors, Squirrels! Introducing the latest app...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Now Is Everything in Books
Dec 24, 2017
breathtaking (3 more)
powerful
suspenseful
heartbreaking
Hadley's life looks perfect from the outside. Her family is wealthy, and she's a successful athlete and student. What you don't see is that Hadley's father works at breaking her down, day after day, forcing her into playing lacrosse and taking flying lessons (his two passions), monitoring her whereabouts and food intake, berating and belittling her constantly, and much worse. Hadley endures it all though, if it keeps the spotlight off her beloved spitfire of a little sister, Lila. Hadley would do anything to keep her father's focus off of Lila. Lila's only ten--the age her father targeted his laser beam on her. Hadley's life improves, however, when she secretly starts dating Charlie Simmons. On the surface, Charlie's life isn't anything like hers--he's the son of a poor single mom, but the two quickly find they have more in common than they realize. Even better, Charlie gives Hadley something she hasn't had in a long time: hope. Then, Hadley is in a plane crash, which tragically leaves her family is dead. Only Hadley can tell everyone what happened, but she isn't divulging the details. What happened that day in the plane? And why would it cause Hadley--the only survivor--to want to take her own life?
This book. Oh this book. Wow. I completely overlooked this one on my ARC shelf, and for that, I deeply apologize. But, I'm so, so, so glad I did pick it up! This is an amazing, powerful, and heartbreaking book and easily one of my favorite books I've read this year.
Part of the power comes via its format, which seems simple on the surface. The novel and its details are all a slow build via a "then" and "now" format plus transcripts and bits of evidence from the crash investigator. All of our "then" and "now" portions come from Hadley's point of view and leave us constantly wondering. Why is her dad all over her? What makes him so evil? You are also left in utter confusion and suspense over exactly what happened during the crash (and why it happened). I read the second half in one sitting, staying up late to finish it. I simply had to know what happened to Hadley.
I credit this to Giles' writing, which is superb. You will get sucked in by Hadley extremely early. She's a well-written, compelling character, and it's nearly impossible not to become part of her life. In fact, rarely have I felt so strongly for characters in a novel in a long time. If I could have, I would have gone and rescued those children myself! I simply loved Hadley and her wonderful, feisty sister, Lila. The hate I felt for their horrible, abusive father--and, sometimes, their apathetic, passive mother, was insane. They felt like real people. I was completely involved.
In fact, those poor kids. The book actually made me feel tense just reading about their lives. It was so well-done that I read portions of it with a knot in my stomach. (As a note, there's definitely a trigger for abuse.) Watching Hadley try to protect her sister and live up to adult expectations far beyond her teen years--seriously, guys, it was heartbreaking and yet amazing to read. You will find yourself rooting for Hadley and Lila in an inexplicable way.
The ending on this one is interesting. I'm still pondering it. The fascinating thing about this book is that you know *something* has to have happened up in that plane, but you don't know exactly what, or how it all goes down. The ending made me go "wow." I'm not exactly sure it's what I would have chosen, but it still felt right somehow. Although I was so attached to Hadley, that I wish there was a sequel of sorts, because I still feel bonded to the girl. That's how well-done this novel was!
Overall, this is just a lovely book. Very, very rarely does a book make me cry. This one did. This is not a light read, no, but there are still funny moments, beautiful moments, and heartwarming moments among all the dark ones. You will not regret reading this book. Huge kudos to Amy Giles for writing such a powerful and wonderful novel that so deftly deals with abuse and aspects of mental illness. I feel like Hadley and Lila will stay with me for a long time. 4.5 stars.
This book. Oh this book. Wow. I completely overlooked this one on my ARC shelf, and for that, I deeply apologize. But, I'm so, so, so glad I did pick it up! This is an amazing, powerful, and heartbreaking book and easily one of my favorite books I've read this year.
Part of the power comes via its format, which seems simple on the surface. The novel and its details are all a slow build via a "then" and "now" format plus transcripts and bits of evidence from the crash investigator. All of our "then" and "now" portions come from Hadley's point of view and leave us constantly wondering. Why is her dad all over her? What makes him so evil? You are also left in utter confusion and suspense over exactly what happened during the crash (and why it happened). I read the second half in one sitting, staying up late to finish it. I simply had to know what happened to Hadley.
I credit this to Giles' writing, which is superb. You will get sucked in by Hadley extremely early. She's a well-written, compelling character, and it's nearly impossible not to become part of her life. In fact, rarely have I felt so strongly for characters in a novel in a long time. If I could have, I would have gone and rescued those children myself! I simply loved Hadley and her wonderful, feisty sister, Lila. The hate I felt for their horrible, abusive father--and, sometimes, their apathetic, passive mother, was insane. They felt like real people. I was completely involved.
In fact, those poor kids. The book actually made me feel tense just reading about their lives. It was so well-done that I read portions of it with a knot in my stomach. (As a note, there's definitely a trigger for abuse.) Watching Hadley try to protect her sister and live up to adult expectations far beyond her teen years--seriously, guys, it was heartbreaking and yet amazing to read. You will find yourself rooting for Hadley and Lila in an inexplicable way.
The ending on this one is interesting. I'm still pondering it. The fascinating thing about this book is that you know *something* has to have happened up in that plane, but you don't know exactly what, or how it all goes down. The ending made me go "wow." I'm not exactly sure it's what I would have chosen, but it still felt right somehow. Although I was so attached to Hadley, that I wish there was a sequel of sorts, because I still feel bonded to the girl. That's how well-done this novel was!
Overall, this is just a lovely book. Very, very rarely does a book make me cry. This one did. This is not a light read, no, but there are still funny moments, beautiful moments, and heartwarming moments among all the dark ones. You will not regret reading this book. Huge kudos to Amy Giles for writing such a powerful and wonderful novel that so deftly deals with abuse and aspects of mental illness. I feel like Hadley and Lila will stay with me for a long time. 4.5 stars.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Everything You Want Me to Be in Books
May 16, 2018
It's not very often that I add a title to my list of favorite books, and I've never felt the burning desire to create a shelf for my favorite reads on Goodreads - that is, until this moment. After finishing up with Mindy Mejia's Everything You Want Me to Be, I am nearly speechless. What Mejia has pulled off in her book is nothing short of a impressive.
One of the things that caught my interest when I was browsing through titles to request on NetGalley was the synopsis for this novel, which I found to be unique. Most books give you a loose summary of the plot, sans spoilers. It's the information that you usually find on the back of a book, really. That little tidbit of information for Everything You Want Me to Be came defied the norm in that regard by blatantly telling potential readers that they would be following the life of a girl up until her death which, if you ask me, is a pretty big spoiler: one that leaves a challenge at that. If you tell your readers that the main character is dead, the question that remains is this: how are you going to keep them hooked? Mejia's reply to that query comes in the form of a plot full of nerve-wracking twists and turns that, no matter how certain a reader might be, is likely to still leave them searching for answers. (I was actually guessing until the very end how this book would play out, and I did not figure it out until the very last moment, when there were only lines left until the major reveal.)
Everything You Want Me to Be is a whodunnit novel - of that, I have no doubt. Eighteen-year-old Henrietta Hoffman, full of talent and with her whole life ahead of her, is murdered. It was someone close to her, according to evidence, and its left to the sheriff, who happens to be the girl's father's best friend, to find out who's behind it. It is also a psychological thriller. Reading this book, I felt things I did not want to feel. Where I felt I should be directing anger and disgust, I could not; in fact, my least favorite character is actually the victim, rather than the various suspects I encountered as I read.
Henrietta, or Hattie as she prefers to be called, is a typical teen-aged girl, facing the usual obstacles of small town life. Having been in her shoes, I was able to connect with her and, in some ways, relive my own past as I read through her dialogue. Born and raised in rural south Minnesota, Hattie has dreams of the Big Apple. Every moment of her free time is spent focusing on those dreams, and while she's browsing through a forum, she meets a guy that she ends up falling in love with. Through private messages, a relationship blooms, and she and this guy embark upon a journey with an unknown destination. It's a pretty easy web to get caught up in, especially when one spends most of their time pleasing other people, which Hattie obviously does.
The book is told from three perspectives in total: Henrietta's, Peter's, and Del's. Peter is a teacher at her school and Del is the town's sheriff. In addition to these three vastly different points-of-view, there is a plethora of minor characters and, surprisingly enough, they all have their own quirks and flaws. I have to admit I'm actually impressed by how much depth there is to Mejia's characters and that she's written them in such a way that it's easy to remember their traits. More often than not, when there's so many characters to flesh out, it is way too easy to lose track of individual character traits.
I can't say a whole lot about the plot's flow really. To be honest, it is a bit all over the place. Considering that Everything You Want Me to Be is written in a loose journal-style and one of the speakers is the sheriff, that is to be expected. Obviously there isn't much of a need to include him prior to the discovery of Hattie's body. Also, the story starts at the end, then hooks back to a year prior to the murder. Fortunately, each shift in voice is dated, so it's not too much of a challenge to keep up with.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an advance copy for the purpose of an unbiased review. I can't wait for a chance to purchase a physical copy of this book for my shelf!
One of the things that caught my interest when I was browsing through titles to request on NetGalley was the synopsis for this novel, which I found to be unique. Most books give you a loose summary of the plot, sans spoilers. It's the information that you usually find on the back of a book, really. That little tidbit of information for Everything You Want Me to Be came defied the norm in that regard by blatantly telling potential readers that they would be following the life of a girl up until her death which, if you ask me, is a pretty big spoiler: one that leaves a challenge at that. If you tell your readers that the main character is dead, the question that remains is this: how are you going to keep them hooked? Mejia's reply to that query comes in the form of a plot full of nerve-wracking twists and turns that, no matter how certain a reader might be, is likely to still leave them searching for answers. (I was actually guessing until the very end how this book would play out, and I did not figure it out until the very last moment, when there were only lines left until the major reveal.)
Everything You Want Me to Be is a whodunnit novel - of that, I have no doubt. Eighteen-year-old Henrietta Hoffman, full of talent and with her whole life ahead of her, is murdered. It was someone close to her, according to evidence, and its left to the sheriff, who happens to be the girl's father's best friend, to find out who's behind it. It is also a psychological thriller. Reading this book, I felt things I did not want to feel. Where I felt I should be directing anger and disgust, I could not; in fact, my least favorite character is actually the victim, rather than the various suspects I encountered as I read.
Henrietta, or Hattie as she prefers to be called, is a typical teen-aged girl, facing the usual obstacles of small town life. Having been in her shoes, I was able to connect with her and, in some ways, relive my own past as I read through her dialogue. Born and raised in rural south Minnesota, Hattie has dreams of the Big Apple. Every moment of her free time is spent focusing on those dreams, and while she's browsing through a forum, she meets a guy that she ends up falling in love with. Through private messages, a relationship blooms, and she and this guy embark upon a journey with an unknown destination. It's a pretty easy web to get caught up in, especially when one spends most of their time pleasing other people, which Hattie obviously does.
The book is told from three perspectives in total: Henrietta's, Peter's, and Del's. Peter is a teacher at her school and Del is the town's sheriff. In addition to these three vastly different points-of-view, there is a plethora of minor characters and, surprisingly enough, they all have their own quirks and flaws. I have to admit I'm actually impressed by how much depth there is to Mejia's characters and that she's written them in such a way that it's easy to remember their traits. More often than not, when there's so many characters to flesh out, it is way too easy to lose track of individual character traits.
I can't say a whole lot about the plot's flow really. To be honest, it is a bit all over the place. Considering that Everything You Want Me to Be is written in a loose journal-style and one of the speakers is the sheriff, that is to be expected. Obviously there isn't much of a need to include him prior to the discovery of Hattie's body. Also, the story starts at the end, then hooks back to a year prior to the murder. Fortunately, each shift in voice is dated, so it's not too much of a challenge to keep up with.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an advance copy for the purpose of an unbiased review. I can't wait for a chance to purchase a physical copy of this book for my shelf!