Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
Not The Best In The Series But Entertains
One of the most intriguing yet often exaggerated lines in movie history is “based on actual events”. I’ve always had a fascination with supernatural thrillers that came with this tag line, whether it’s a movie like Amityville Horror or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. None of these are more popular than The Conjuring series, based on two real life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren. Whether you believe in ghosts and haunted houses or not, these films always played on the notion that the events “could” possibly happen…even if they were exaggerated for Hollywood audiences. Annabelle Comes Home breaks the trend of previous Conjuring movies by not bothering to pretend that it’s based on any of the “actual” events from the previous films. So how does it stack up to its predecessors?
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
The movie begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren retrieving Annabelle and taking the scary doll home to lock her away in the now infamous artifact room. The dolls presence is so evil, that it takes not only blessings by a priest but being locked away in a case made up of glass from an old church to keep it’s evil at bay. Not only is the display case locked, but a sign is placed upon it, warning any who may enter not to release the doll within. Several pad locks later the Warrens feel comfortable that the evil within is contained.
A year passes and both Ed and Lorraine are called away on business, entrusting the care of their young daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) to her responsible babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) blackmails Mary Ellen into allowing her to come over and stay with her and Judy in the Warren’s household. Using an opportunity when both Judy and Mary Ellen are out of the house, Daniela finds the artifact room (and the keys necessary to open it), and what at first appears to be idle curiosity, quickly turns into an attempt to utilize the artifacts in the room to reach out to her recently deceased father. It is in this attempt that Daniela unknowingly releases the evil in the room when she opens the case that Annabelle is in (it’s not like there was a BIG sign warning her not to do so).
Annabelle in her search for a soul, releases the full power and evil of all the artifacts in the room. Everything from an empty suit of Samurai armor to a wedding dress the drives the wearer insane is on display. Even a werewolf is released upon the world hunting an unwary suitor of Mary Ellen’s who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s up to this band of babysitters and children to restore order to the house and find a way to contain the evil that has been brought upon the world.
Annabelle Comes Home starts out fairly slow and takes awhile to build the tension. The first hour of the movie is mainly the interaction between the family and friends, and introductions to the various artifacts that are in the room. It’s not until the second half of the film when things really begin to take off. When the movie finally hits its creepy stride, it has plenty of genuine scares and intense moments, but focuses on several of the iconic artifacts and their affect on the individuals in the house.
While each of the artifacts has its own unique and interesting characteristics, we are hit with a barrage of items that are each going after one of the guests in the house. Whether it’s the television that can predict the future, or the locket that allows communication with the dead, it’s a lot to keep track of and tends to lose focus on the main plot. The movie attempts to cram every noticeable item from its previous films and give it some main purpose in the plot. In fact, the creepiest of all the artifacts Annabelle, takes on the role of evil puppet master controlling the artifacts which means less screen time and scares for her. Personally, Annabelle is scary enough to carry her own film (she has in previous installments), but in this film she is relegated to a side character, where the haunted artifacts take center stage.
The area I feel the movie loses the most is in the “believability” state. Remember that the Conjuring universe is based on real people, and on their actual encounters. Unfortunately, at no point in this film does one believe that any of these supernatural events could be mistaken for reality. It’s what I feel is the difference between a supernatural thriller and simply a monster movie. Much like other supernatural films, it’s about what you don’t see, rather than what you do, and Annabelle Comes Home unfortunately relies too much on its visuals leaving little to the viewers imagination. Imagining what a demon could look like is scarier than what Hollywood can dream up and show on the screen.
Ultimately Annabelle Comes home is a good movie which should have been great. It forgoes much of what made the series popular and replaces it with some goofy scenes and special effects. The artifacts are interesting, which makes the movie enjoyable, but not scary. I went in with hopes that I’d leave at least a little unnerved, looking under my covers, or turning the numerous dolls around that adorn my wife’s doll room. Unfortunately, I left feeling as though I’d simply been given a tour of the artifact room, with one night of scares that would disappear the next morning, as if from a bad dream. If you are looking to be scared, this movie likely won’t do that. If you are looking for an interesting movie with deeper background into the artifacts that have adorned the Warrens room for the past films, then this is the film for you.
3 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/06/20/annabelle-comes-home/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
Becs (244 KP) rated Monster Catchers in Books
Jul 6, 2019
Captivating middle grade novel!
You can also find this review on my blog: bookingwayreads.wordpress.com
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Thank you to Smith Publicity and the author, George Brewington, for allowing me the wonderful opportunity to be a part of the Monster Catchers blog tour and for sending me a copy to read and review.
TRIGGER WARNINGS: death, kidnapping
"We can't always think of ourselves. There are so many creatures in the world that need love."
Main Characters:
Bailey Buckleby - the main character and co-owner of Buckleby and Sons. He's a monster catcher like his father, but questions how his father goes about the business. Very compassionate and has a good Frisbee throwing arm.
Dougie Buckleby - Bailey's father and the owner of Buckleby and Sons. He has taught Bailey everything he knows about being a monster catcher. A bit selfish by not really listening to Bailey, even though he always ends up being right.
Savannah - schoolmate of Bailey's turned friend. A part of the Bullhead Brigade, which Nikos is also a part of.
Henry - baby Swiss troll that is taken in by Dougie. But is he?
Candycane Boom - a loan shark that ends up teaming up with Axel Pazuzu. Later become an alley to Bailey, Savannah, and Nikos.
Nikos - a Minotaur that is hired to take down Bailey and his father but after being beaten, he joins forces.
Axel Pazuzu - a cynocephaly (part human, part dog that is a god). Known for scamming people worse than Candycane Boom. Ends up causing a lot of problems for Bailey, Savannah, and Dougie.
"Sometimes passion makes one do really, really stupid things. You mustn't beat yourself up about it."
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Monster Catchers is a middle grade novel about friendship, adventure, sacrifices, saving the ones you love, with a hint of romance and drama. It starts with Bailey sitting at the register in the family shop, rereading In the Shadows of Monsters by his favorite monster catcher. Some teenage boys come in looking for trouble, but Bailey scares them off by showing them the monitor that shows the back room. This very back room is where the real business of Buckleby and Sons take place: monster catching.
Soon after the group of teenage boys leave, a customer comes in needing to have a 'pest' taken care of. Once the Buckleby's are hired, Candycane Boom comes in looking for another fairy friend for his current fairy. He picks on out while Bailey walks Henry on Whalefat Beach. This is where the two meet Axel Pazuzu a cynocephaly, which is a half human, half dog god creature. Axel tries buying Henry from Bailey, but he refuses because he doesn't want to loose this best friend. Bailey quickly heads home with Henry before Axel tries stealing Henry away.
That night, Dougie and Bailey head out to the customer's home to catch the little rascal that has been stealing all of the lights. Well, things don't go according to plane and instead of catching just one little goblin, they catch two and encounter about ten others. This doesn't turn out for Dougie as one of the goblins bites his finger off!
After they returned home, Bailey fell asleep. The next morning, he headed to school to give the report that was due but that he wasn't ready for. So he improvised and told about one of the real stories from In the Shadow of Monsters. Now, the thing with people within Monster Catchers, is that they don't believe that the monsters are real. They are in a constant denial, even when they've seen the monsters themselves. This sparks some major debate in Bailey's class.
Savannah ends up following Bailey back to the store where she is introduced to all the monsters in the back room and even eventually meets Axel Pazuzu when they head to the beach to walk Henry. Axel hires Candycane to get Henry from the Buckleby's. Well, this causes a bunch of different action packed scenes that will leave you turning the pages until the ending.
When you think monsters, you don't think of a father-son duo saving California. But that's just what Dougie and Bailey Buckleby do. For the right price, they will capture anything from goblins and trolls to harpies and fairies. If it's a monster of any sort, the Buckleby's are the one's to call. But, Bailey soon finds out that his father has been lying to him all of his life and it must be he who saves the people of the world. Monster Catcher is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure that will capture young hearts everywhere.
Character/ Story background and development -
I was generally surprised at how much development was within this little novel. Especially for it being book one in a series and a debut! Bailey's and his fathers development were some of the best. The two go from best buds to Bailey questioning everything about him to having to sacrifice him for the sake of the world. It just blew me away the relationship that the duo had as they were massively different, but brought very similar aspects to the relationship.
Plot -
George Brewington weaves lessons of friendship, morals, and action into this fantasy filled debut. Bailey's interest in monsters is heartwarming, especially when he finds out that monsters have feelings and all aren't bad like they are perceived to be.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors -
I honestly didn't seem to find any spelling or grammatical errors that popped out or took away from the overall story. Monster Catchers is a very well-written novel.
Enjoyment -
I really enjoyed going on an adventure with Bailey and all the lovable monsters. I will most defiantly be rereading this. One thing I rather enjoyed, that I have to point out, is how George Brewington mixed extremely important world issues like: environmental issues, understanding differences, and sacrifices along with adding that fantasy aspect that is common among middle-grade novels.
Overall -
With the interwoven lessons and morals, the fun and quirky lines, the cliff hangers, discovering oneself, understanding differences, Monster Catchers encourages the reader to think beyond the words that are written.
Do I recommend? -
Yes! I highly recommend The Monster Catchers by George Brewington. It was such a cute little novel and I need more!!
"We either try or die, Bailey Boy."
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in Books
Apr 2, 2020
If you've followed my blog for awhile, you know I have a thing for middle grade fiction. There's something so refreshing that I just love. When the chance to read Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator arose, I couldn't say no. The synopsis sucked me right in, and I figured I'd be in for a great adventure. I wasn't wrong.
Edison Jones is a 12 year old seventh grader. After a car accident (that really wasn't an accident) left him paralyzed from the waist down and killed his parents, he's been living a very sheltered life with his grandpa. Edison isn't like most 12 year olds though. He's highly intelligent and has come up with a way to invent a anti-gravity space elevator. He's just go to prove to NASA that it works. Oh, and he's also being enrolled into the local public junior high school for the first time which also presents problems of its own. Edison will have to prove his space elevator has what it takes while also navigating the new realm of school and friendship if he's going to make his dreams come true.
The plot for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator definitely was an interesting one for sure. While there are similar books out there, Michael Scott Clifton really made his book stand out. I liked how the main character had a disability which made it harder for him when it came to everything. It's refreshing to see a main character that's different from the mainstream. There is a bunch of science speak and terminology which can be a little overwhelming for the average person, but eventually, you get used to it. Plus, you don't need to know all of the terminology to enjoy this book. Context clues are also available to help make the terminology a bit more understandable. Descriptive scenes abound throughout this novel which makes it very easy to get lost in this book. In fact, many times I forgot where I was because I was so focused on this novel. The anticipation that Clifton sets up for major events throughout Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator is done brilliantly. I was definitely holding my breath and turning the page quickly to find out what would happen next especially when it came to scenes with the Breakstone twins, the robotics competition, the last junior high football game, and the launching of Edison's space elevator! The build up in those scenes was amazing! The ending does leave the possibility of another Edison Jones story being released in the future.
One thing that did irk me quite a bit was the stereotype that all of those who live in mobile homes are trashy. I felt like the author played into that a bit too much during one chapter. Here's one example which can be found at the end of chapter 26 when discussing Markie Franks who is a bully and Hondo's house (Hondo, Edison's friend, comes from a home where his mom chooses her boyfriend over him, and the boyfriend and Hondo don't get along.): "Markie's house surprised Edison. Although more modest than Bree's, it was also a brick home with an immaculate yard and appearance. He wasn't sure what he expected--maybe a mobile home with rusting cars on blocks in the yard--not the tidy home the bully lived in. Hondo...did live in a mobile home complete with a yard full of foot-high weeds. The only light came from the blue flicker of a TV through a grimy window next to the front door. With a grimace, Hondo got out and waved, his shoes pushing a path through the brown weeds and grass." It's stereotypes like this that make those who live in mobile homes easy targets for bullying as well as making those that live in mobile homes feel horrible about their life. It really shouldn't have been discussed like this at all. Not everyone who lives in a mobile home is trailer trash which is what I felt this book was implying.
I did feel like all the characters in Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator where very fleshed out and realistic. Edison is extremely intelligent when it comes to science, but he struggles with fitting in as he's been sheltered his whole life. Even though Edison isn't your average 12 year old when it comes to smarts, it was refreshing to see just how average he was when it came to navigating friendships and romance. I loved reading about Edison's thought process when it came to his crush on Carly as well as his friendship between Bree, Hondo, and Carly. I liked how Edison, for the most part, wouldn't give that bully, Markie Franks, the satisfaction of knowing that he bothered him. I admired Hondo after all he had been through. Throughout most of the book, I was trying to figure out if Hondo was a genuine person or if he would end up double crossing Edison. Bree and Carly were great friends to Edison, and it was obvious how much they admired Edison. I liked how they would stand up for him. The Breakstone Twins were also very interesting. I can't wait to see more of them in future books (if the author chooses to make this a series). I liked how cunning and calculated they both were.
Trigger warnings for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator include some profanity, name calling including using the word pussy which I didn't like, some stereotyping, some violence, bullying, attempted murder, murder, a mention of drugs (being stoned), some underage smoking, and a mention of beer.
All in all, Edison Jones and The Anti-GRAV Elevator is a fantastic story that straps you in for a very exciting adventure throughout its pages. The plot is fantastic, the characters are diverse, and the action abounds. I would definitely recommend Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator by Michael Scott Clifton to those aged 13+ who seek adventure in their life. This would appeal mostly to those interested in science, but I think everyone who enjoys a solid story would like it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for the tour and to Michael Scott Clifton for sending me a paperback of Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Edison Jones is a 12 year old seventh grader. After a car accident (that really wasn't an accident) left him paralyzed from the waist down and killed his parents, he's been living a very sheltered life with his grandpa. Edison isn't like most 12 year olds though. He's highly intelligent and has come up with a way to invent a anti-gravity space elevator. He's just go to prove to NASA that it works. Oh, and he's also being enrolled into the local public junior high school for the first time which also presents problems of its own. Edison will have to prove his space elevator has what it takes while also navigating the new realm of school and friendship if he's going to make his dreams come true.
The plot for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator definitely was an interesting one for sure. While there are similar books out there, Michael Scott Clifton really made his book stand out. I liked how the main character had a disability which made it harder for him when it came to everything. It's refreshing to see a main character that's different from the mainstream. There is a bunch of science speak and terminology which can be a little overwhelming for the average person, but eventually, you get used to it. Plus, you don't need to know all of the terminology to enjoy this book. Context clues are also available to help make the terminology a bit more understandable. Descriptive scenes abound throughout this novel which makes it very easy to get lost in this book. In fact, many times I forgot where I was because I was so focused on this novel. The anticipation that Clifton sets up for major events throughout Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator is done brilliantly. I was definitely holding my breath and turning the page quickly to find out what would happen next especially when it came to scenes with the Breakstone twins, the robotics competition, the last junior high football game, and the launching of Edison's space elevator! The build up in those scenes was amazing! The ending does leave the possibility of another Edison Jones story being released in the future.
One thing that did irk me quite a bit was the stereotype that all of those who live in mobile homes are trashy. I felt like the author played into that a bit too much during one chapter. Here's one example which can be found at the end of chapter 26 when discussing Markie Franks who is a bully and Hondo's house (Hondo, Edison's friend, comes from a home where his mom chooses her boyfriend over him, and the boyfriend and Hondo don't get along.): "Markie's house surprised Edison. Although more modest than Bree's, it was also a brick home with an immaculate yard and appearance. He wasn't sure what he expected--maybe a mobile home with rusting cars on blocks in the yard--not the tidy home the bully lived in. Hondo...did live in a mobile home complete with a yard full of foot-high weeds. The only light came from the blue flicker of a TV through a grimy window next to the front door. With a grimace, Hondo got out and waved, his shoes pushing a path through the brown weeds and grass." It's stereotypes like this that make those who live in mobile homes easy targets for bullying as well as making those that live in mobile homes feel horrible about their life. It really shouldn't have been discussed like this at all. Not everyone who lives in a mobile home is trailer trash which is what I felt this book was implying.
I did feel like all the characters in Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator where very fleshed out and realistic. Edison is extremely intelligent when it comes to science, but he struggles with fitting in as he's been sheltered his whole life. Even though Edison isn't your average 12 year old when it comes to smarts, it was refreshing to see just how average he was when it came to navigating friendships and romance. I loved reading about Edison's thought process when it came to his crush on Carly as well as his friendship between Bree, Hondo, and Carly. I liked how Edison, for the most part, wouldn't give that bully, Markie Franks, the satisfaction of knowing that he bothered him. I admired Hondo after all he had been through. Throughout most of the book, I was trying to figure out if Hondo was a genuine person or if he would end up double crossing Edison. Bree and Carly were great friends to Edison, and it was obvious how much they admired Edison. I liked how they would stand up for him. The Breakstone Twins were also very interesting. I can't wait to see more of them in future books (if the author chooses to make this a series). I liked how cunning and calculated they both were.
Trigger warnings for Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator include some profanity, name calling including using the word pussy which I didn't like, some stereotyping, some violence, bullying, attempted murder, murder, a mention of drugs (being stoned), some underage smoking, and a mention of beer.
All in all, Edison Jones and The Anti-GRAV Elevator is a fantastic story that straps you in for a very exciting adventure throughout its pages. The plot is fantastic, the characters are diverse, and the action abounds. I would definitely recommend Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator by Michael Scott Clifton to those aged 13+ who seek adventure in their life. This would appeal mostly to those interested in science, but I think everyone who enjoys a solid story would like it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for the tour and to Michael Scott Clifton for sending me a paperback of Edison Jones and The ANTI-GRAV Elevator in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
I love a good shark movie. Since as far back as I can remember, I have been fascinated by sharks. I think they’re some of the most interesting creatures on our planet. Even when I was a kid, I used to wear shark tooth necklaces because I thought they were so cool. Basically any time you’ve got sharks in a movie, I’m all in for it. Amusingly enough, that same sentiment does not apply to video games where I think they’re terrifying! (Jaws on the original Nintendo freaked-me-out as a child.) Having said all that, I was excited to see 47 Meters Down: Uncaged, even though I missed out on the original film back in 2017. Johannes Roberts, the director of the minimalistic first film, 47 Meters Down, returns for this sequel and brings back the great white sharks, but shakes up for the formula a bit by adding an underwater maze to the mix.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Down These Strange Streets in Books
Mar 1, 2018
This anthology gathers stories from authors who normally write in various genres. The commonality is that each story is a mystery, and there's a fantastic twist to each. Martin's introduction calls such stories the "bastard stepchild" of mystery and horror.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
[a:Charlaine Harris|17061|Charlaine Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1307925926p2/17061.jpg]'; "Death by Dahlia," set in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, is one of a series of stories about the vampire Dahlia Lynley-Chivers. Each story stands alone, but my enjoyment grows greater with each addition to her tales. I'd much rather see Dahlia as the main character of a novel than Sookie, to be honest. This story, set at the party for the ascension of a new vampire sherrif, was a little gem, and a nice start to the collection.
"The Bleeding Shadow" by [a:Joe R. Lansdale|58971|Joe R. Lansdale|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1200406474p2/58971.jpg] is grittier from start to finish, set in the south of black folks in the 1950s. A beautiful woman sends her sometime-suitor to find her brother, a blues musician who has gotten into music that isn't of this world. I couldn't be done with this one soon enough, as it gave me the willies. I have a feeling Lansdale would be happy that it stuck with me for a while.
[a:Simon R. Green|41942|Simon R. Green|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224555729p2/41942.jpg]'s "Hungry Heart" takes us to the Nightside, where John Taylor is hired by a young witch to retrieve her stolen heart. I haven't read any of the Nightside novels, but this is probably the third or fourth short story I've read, and for some reason they never leave me wanting more. I don't hunger for the darkness, I guess. I will give Green points for creativity in evil henchmen, though.
"Styx and Stones" by [a:Steven Saylor|42919|Steven Saylor|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243268148p2/42919.jpg] takes a teenage version of his novel hero Gordianus on a world tour to see the Seven Wonders of the World, and this stop is Babylon. Gordianus and his companion, Antipater, find a murderous ghost in residence near their inn in addition to seeing the Ziggurat, the Gate of Ishtar, and what's left of the Hanging Gardens.
[a:S. M. Stirling|6448047|S. M. Stirling|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg]'s "Pain and Suffering" was unsatisfying to me. It opened with an ex-soldier's combat flashback twisted into something Other, then we learn that the ex-soldier is a cop. He and his partner spend a lot of time investigating an apparent arson and possibly-connected kidnapping. The flashbacks repeat. There's more, but I don't want to spoil the story. I just felt that there was a lot of build-up for very little payoff, and that perhaps this story was meant as a teaser for a novel in which context it would all make far more sense.
"It's Still the Same Old Story' by [a:Carrie Vaughn|8988|Carrie Vaughn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1231952277p2/8988.jpg] features vampire Rick, from the Kitty Norville books. An old friend calls him needing his help, but by the time he gets to her, she's dead. Most of the story is told in flashback, with him remembering when he originally met the now-old-woman, when they were lovers for a time. The murder is no great mystery for very long. The story felt more rote than anything else, as if perhaps Vaughn wanted to humanize Rick a bit by showing that he had cared for this woman at one time. I didn't feel much of anything from it.
One of the more creative pieces, "The Lady is a Screamer" by [a:Conn Iggulden|119121|Conn Iggulden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235073163p2/119121.jpg], is told in first person by a con man turned ghostbuster. I didn't like it, precisely, and i certainly didn't like the narrator. It stands alone, though, and doesn't feel derivative at all, so that says something all by itself.
"Hellbender" by [a:Laurie R. King|6760|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1314242901p2/6760.jpg] is probably the only story that left me determined to hunt down more of the author's work. I would classify it as near-future science fiction, but it certainly fits in the noir detective genre as well. I have no hesitation giving this one story five out of five stars.
"Shadow Thieves" is a Garrett, P.I. story by [a:Glen Cook|13026|Glen Cook|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1207159752p2/13026.jpg]. That's another series I haven't read, but I believe this is the first time I've read a short story set in that world. I wouldn't mind reading the series if the novels are all light-hearted like this story. There was some darkness, obviously, or the piece wouldn't be in this anthology - but overall, there was humor.
[a:Melinda M. Snodgrass|725899|Melinda M. Snodgrass|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1271184595p2/725899.jpg]'; "No Mystery, No Miracle" is probably the most controversial story in the book if anybody is really paying attention. I found it intriguing and well-written.
"The Difference Between a Puzzle and a Mystery" by [a:M.L.N. Hanover|1868743|M.L.N. Hanover|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] takes us a big city, where an overworked cop is trying to get a confession out of a supposedly demon-possessed killer. He gets help from an unusual minister (Unitarian, we're told - not something that will thrill any UUs out there). I found this one of the most chilling stories in the book. Telling you why, however, would be a spoiler.
I would love to see a novel featuring the main characters of [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]'s "The Curious Affair of the Deodand" - a young woman in the Watson role and a young man as a Sherlock Holmes-type consulting detective. The young lady is every bit as vital to resolving the case as the man is, which is one of the things I enjoyed about the story. The resolution isn't as satisfying as it could be, though, which is one of the reasons I'd like to see the same characters in other circumstances.
"Lord John and the Plague of Zombies" by [a:Diana Gabaldon|3617|Diana Gabaldon|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1213918339p2/3617.jpg] is a Lord John Grey story. This is, I believe, the first thing I've read by Gabaldon. It wasn't bad and it wasn't earth-shakingly good. It was decently-plotted with predictable characters and a nice little twist at the end, so enjoyable to read. I won't avoid her work but I'm not burning to read more, either.
"Beware the Snake" is an SPQR story by [a:John Maddox Roberts|19522|John Maddox Roberts|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1285244765p2/19522.jpg]. Once again, I'm unfamiliar with the author and the series, but the story gave enough context for me to understand the setting and the characters, so that was all right. It was enjoyable, although I probably would have twigged to a couple of things more quickly were I more familiar with Roman naming customs.
[a:Patricia Briggs|40563|Patricia Briggs|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1228867484p2/40563.jpg]'; "In Red, With Pearls" is set in Mercedes Thompson's world but featuring werewolf Warren Smith and his lover Kyle. Kyle is set upon by a zombie assassin who is thwarted by Warren, but of course Warren wants to know who sent the zombie, why, and who made the zombie. It's a very good story, as I've come to expect from Briggs. I had a bit of a hard time keeping up with some of the secondary characters in the story, but then I was distracted at the time.
"The Adakian Eagle" by [a:Bradley Denton|198305|Bradley Denton|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1320697919p2/198305.jpg] is a Dashiell Hammett story - as in, Hammett is a character. That was interesting alone, but the story in general was well-told. Spare and hard, as befits one of the main characters.
All in all this is a collection that I can definitely recommend. There are very few clunkers are several excellent stories. [a:George R.R. Martin|346732|George R.R. Martin|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1195658637p2/346732.jpg] and [a:Gardner R. Dozois|12052|Gardner R. Dozois|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247758142p2/12052.jpg] did their jobs very well.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019 (Updated Sep 16, 2019)
Mad Max: Fury Road is an intense, action-packed, visually stunning, and wildly entertaining film. It's only when the action slows down that the film starts to show signs of decay.
30 years and a fresh face later, the Mad Max series makes an extravagant and exhilarating return to theaters with Mad Max: Fury Road. Mel Gibson’s iconic wasteland warrior hero Max Rockatansky has been recast with the talented Tom Hardy, who gives us a more visceral and damaged portrayal of the character. Having endured years in the Hellish wasteland, Max now acts on his sole instinct of surviving. He’s ravaged by the horrors of his past and has lost all semblance of hope in this bleak, post-apocalyptic future where water is scarce and mayhem is bountiful. Director and series creator George Miller does a masterful job in creating a remarkable and inventive world of chaos and destruction, with action sequences that are practically unparalleled. Mad Max: Fury Road is a movie that keeps its fat, irradiated foot firmly pressed on the gas pedal throughout almost its entire duration, resulting in a movie that’s intense, action-packed, visually stunning, perfectly bizarre, wonderfully inventive, and wildly entertaining. It’s only when the action slows down that the film starts to show signs of decay.
In Fury Road, we first encounter Max alone in the wasteland in what is about to be a very long and very bad day. He’s quickly spotted and pursued by a pack of deathly-pale skinhead warriors known as Warboys. Outnumbered and easily captured, Max is taken to The Citadel, which serves as the home of the film’s central conflict. The monstrously plagued Immortan Joe rules over The Citadel like a cult leader, promising eternal salvation to his army of Warboys who die fighting for him. The city is a place of great disparity, as Joe teases the peasants with water, while he enjoys the excesses of his precious resources. Even worse is that he’s enslaved healthy, young women, known as his Five Wives, for the sake of producing his children.
This predicament doesn’t sit well with the battle-hardened woman warrior Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who serves under Immortan Joe’s command. Tired of Joe’s tyrannous ways, Imperator Furiosa betrays her leader during a routine gas run by venturing her armored war-rig offroad with the Five Wives secretly in tow. When news spreads that Furiosa is trying to escape and has taken the Wives with her, Joe and his army of Warboys feverishly follow in pursuit. This begins an epic, elaborate, and expertly crafted chase sequence that is absolutely outrageous and unmistakably brilliant.
Meanwhile, the enslaved Max ends up being inopportunely thrust into the action at full throttle, chained to the front of a car like a hood ornament. While Max’s name may be in the title, make no mistake about it, this is Furiosa’s story. Max is primarily just along for the ride, and doing whatever he can to survive. That’s not to say that Max is simply an unfortunate onlooker to the events of the film, but he is given little in the way of dialogue and backstory, and is chained up for a substantial portion of Fury Road. Though it should be said that the movie as a whole is rather thin on story and dialogue and it merely glosses over the plot to retain its focus on the action, which is where the film really sets itself apart.
The majority of the Fury Road serves as this long, impressive chase sequence that miraculously continues to escalate as the film goes on, despite appearing to throw the whole kitchen sink at you right at the beginning. It’s explosive, crazy, and jaw-droppingly awesome from the get-go, and yet believe me, it only gets bigger and better. Just wait until later when they start adding monster trucks, mini-guns, pole-vaulters, dirt bike-riding grannies, and a guitar flamethrower. It will leave you giddy with excitement. It’s an amazing, heavy-metal, end-of-the-world spectacle that you just got to see to believe. What makes it all even more incredible is that so much of the action is achieved by practical effects, with real stunts and car crashes and explosions.
Unfortunately, in the rare moments when Fury Road lets its foot off the gas and slows down the action, it sometimes sputters. Take for instance, the film’s climactic turning point when Furiosa’s dreams are spoiled. She dramatically falls to her knees in the sand, reeling in despair, and screams out into the void. This pivotal moment should be the most powerful moment of the film, but for me it fell completely flat. The problem here is that I never felt a strong attachment to the characters. While I respect Furiosa and Max for their strength in this struggle, I also feel like I don’t know much of anything about them, except that they’re adept at surviving and have battled through Hell to get to this point. So while this brief interlude drags a bit, Max thankfully turns things back around and leads us right back into the heart of the action, where Fury Road is at its best.
Charlize Theron gives a commanding performance as Furiosa, easily establishing herself among the ranks of the great female action stars. She makes for an excellent partner to Tom Hardy’s Max (though reportedly not so much on set). Hardy, on the other hand, puts in a solid performance, but I do take some issue with it. Truthfully, he just didn’t quite feel like Mad Max. His take on the character is too rugged. He’s missing the charm and likability that Mel Gibson’s Max had. His character may be cool, but he’s difficult to relate to, and feels remarkably reduced as he grunts throughout half of the movie without uttering a word. I can’t help but feel that perhaps Hardy took Max’s madness and survival instincts a little too far. The film also stars Nicholas Hoult as Nux, the Warboy that led Max into this whole mess, who expresses a much more appealing level of craziness. Whereas Nux is an energetic, lunatic cult follower, Max seems like he’s just a few bolts short of becoming a mentally-deranged hobo, which might not bode so well for future films. Lastly, there’s Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who has an exceptional screen presence by being imposing, frightening, and so over-the-top that he’s kind of funny.
Visually and artistically, Mad Max: Fury Road is a triumphant success. It’s more gorgeous than you would ever think possible for a decrepit, wasteland warzone. Considerable skill and attention to detail are demonstrated to bring beauty out of this decaying environment. It features first-rate cinematography and unbelievable creativity. You’ll wonder how anyone ever thought of this stuff, but you’ll be grateful they did. The characters all look outstanding, unique, and memorable. I particularly loved Furiosa’s appearance with her prosthetic arm and grease-smeared warpaint. More impressive still is the menacing Immortan Joe with his mask and elaborate body armor. Fury Road similarly has beautiful special effects which greatly enhance the atmosphere as well as the film’s many remarkable stunts. In all, this is sure to be one of the best looking films of the year.
Mad Max: Fury Road may not be a perfect film, but it makes for an explosive and unforgettable return to the series. It’s truly a creative tour-de-force, with ingenious action, stellar design, and stunning visuals. It features brilliantly choreographed fights and chases, and some of the coolest movie stunts I’ve ever seen. The movie doesn’t always get the emotional punch it’s aiming for, and it has its share of awkward moments, but it sure makes a lasting impression with its intense, adrenaline-pumping theatrics. It might be a little too strange and twisted for some (though it’s relatively tame for being rated R), however, those who can handle the wasteland are sure to find a film that is deserving of respect and admiration. While I have my gripes with Hardy’s portrayal of Max, I know that I, for one, still can’t wait to see what the future holds for everybody’s favorite road warrior.
(The review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.19.15.)
In Fury Road, we first encounter Max alone in the wasteland in what is about to be a very long and very bad day. He’s quickly spotted and pursued by a pack of deathly-pale skinhead warriors known as Warboys. Outnumbered and easily captured, Max is taken to The Citadel, which serves as the home of the film’s central conflict. The monstrously plagued Immortan Joe rules over The Citadel like a cult leader, promising eternal salvation to his army of Warboys who die fighting for him. The city is a place of great disparity, as Joe teases the peasants with water, while he enjoys the excesses of his precious resources. Even worse is that he’s enslaved healthy, young women, known as his Five Wives, for the sake of producing his children.
This predicament doesn’t sit well with the battle-hardened woman warrior Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who serves under Immortan Joe’s command. Tired of Joe’s tyrannous ways, Imperator Furiosa betrays her leader during a routine gas run by venturing her armored war-rig offroad with the Five Wives secretly in tow. When news spreads that Furiosa is trying to escape and has taken the Wives with her, Joe and his army of Warboys feverishly follow in pursuit. This begins an epic, elaborate, and expertly crafted chase sequence that is absolutely outrageous and unmistakably brilliant.
Meanwhile, the enslaved Max ends up being inopportunely thrust into the action at full throttle, chained to the front of a car like a hood ornament. While Max’s name may be in the title, make no mistake about it, this is Furiosa’s story. Max is primarily just along for the ride, and doing whatever he can to survive. That’s not to say that Max is simply an unfortunate onlooker to the events of the film, but he is given little in the way of dialogue and backstory, and is chained up for a substantial portion of Fury Road. Though it should be said that the movie as a whole is rather thin on story and dialogue and it merely glosses over the plot to retain its focus on the action, which is where the film really sets itself apart.
The majority of the Fury Road serves as this long, impressive chase sequence that miraculously continues to escalate as the film goes on, despite appearing to throw the whole kitchen sink at you right at the beginning. It’s explosive, crazy, and jaw-droppingly awesome from the get-go, and yet believe me, it only gets bigger and better. Just wait until later when they start adding monster trucks, mini-guns, pole-vaulters, dirt bike-riding grannies, and a guitar flamethrower. It will leave you giddy with excitement. It’s an amazing, heavy-metal, end-of-the-world spectacle that you just got to see to believe. What makes it all even more incredible is that so much of the action is achieved by practical effects, with real stunts and car crashes and explosions.
Unfortunately, in the rare moments when Fury Road lets its foot off the gas and slows down the action, it sometimes sputters. Take for instance, the film’s climactic turning point when Furiosa’s dreams are spoiled. She dramatically falls to her knees in the sand, reeling in despair, and screams out into the void. This pivotal moment should be the most powerful moment of the film, but for me it fell completely flat. The problem here is that I never felt a strong attachment to the characters. While I respect Furiosa and Max for their strength in this struggle, I also feel like I don’t know much of anything about them, except that they’re adept at surviving and have battled through Hell to get to this point. So while this brief interlude drags a bit, Max thankfully turns things back around and leads us right back into the heart of the action, where Fury Road is at its best.
Charlize Theron gives a commanding performance as Furiosa, easily establishing herself among the ranks of the great female action stars. She makes for an excellent partner to Tom Hardy’s Max (though reportedly not so much on set). Hardy, on the other hand, puts in a solid performance, but I do take some issue with it. Truthfully, he just didn’t quite feel like Mad Max. His take on the character is too rugged. He’s missing the charm and likability that Mel Gibson’s Max had. His character may be cool, but he’s difficult to relate to, and feels remarkably reduced as he grunts throughout half of the movie without uttering a word. I can’t help but feel that perhaps Hardy took Max’s madness and survival instincts a little too far. The film also stars Nicholas Hoult as Nux, the Warboy that led Max into this whole mess, who expresses a much more appealing level of craziness. Whereas Nux is an energetic, lunatic cult follower, Max seems like he’s just a few bolts short of becoming a mentally-deranged hobo, which might not bode so well for future films. Lastly, there’s Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who has an exceptional screen presence by being imposing, frightening, and so over-the-top that he’s kind of funny.
Visually and artistically, Mad Max: Fury Road is a triumphant success. It’s more gorgeous than you would ever think possible for a decrepit, wasteland warzone. Considerable skill and attention to detail are demonstrated to bring beauty out of this decaying environment. It features first-rate cinematography and unbelievable creativity. You’ll wonder how anyone ever thought of this stuff, but you’ll be grateful they did. The characters all look outstanding, unique, and memorable. I particularly loved Furiosa’s appearance with her prosthetic arm and grease-smeared warpaint. More impressive still is the menacing Immortan Joe with his mask and elaborate body armor. Fury Road similarly has beautiful special effects which greatly enhance the atmosphere as well as the film’s many remarkable stunts. In all, this is sure to be one of the best looking films of the year.
Mad Max: Fury Road may not be a perfect film, but it makes for an explosive and unforgettable return to the series. It’s truly a creative tour-de-force, with ingenious action, stellar design, and stunning visuals. It features brilliantly choreographed fights and chases, and some of the coolest movie stunts I’ve ever seen. The movie doesn’t always get the emotional punch it’s aiming for, and it has its share of awkward moments, but it sure makes a lasting impression with its intense, adrenaline-pumping theatrics. It might be a little too strange and twisted for some (though it’s relatively tame for being rated R), however, those who can handle the wasteland are sure to find a film that is deserving of respect and admiration. While I have my gripes with Hardy’s portrayal of Max, I know that I, for one, still can’t wait to see what the future holds for everybody’s favorite road warrior.
(The review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.19.15.)
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Sarah (7798 KP) Feb 23, 2020