Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1994, a low budget film was created in order to preserve the film rights to one of Marvel Comics popular series The Fantastic 4. Created by comic legend Stan Lee, the comic tells the ongoing tales of four people who were endowed with amazing powers after accidental exposure to an element in space.
The film was never released and has gone on to become a popular bootleg amongst comic fans. The ensuing rights for the film were also sold, and for almost a decade Fox has worked in bringing the comic to the big screen.
After years of languishing, the film finally got on the fast track and under the helm of Director Tim Story and features a dynamic cast headed by some of the biggest emerging superstars in Hollywood.
Ioan Gruffudd stars as Reed Richards, a brilliant yet recently bankrupt scientist who, along with his friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), is visiting famed scientist Victor Von Doom (Julian Mc Mahon), in an effort to get his latest venture funded.
Reed is convinced that an approaching storm in space is the key to unlocking vast amounts of genetic secrets and that the shielding on Doom’s space station allows for safe study of the very rare phenomenon.
Doom agrees to the venture in exchange for 75% of all revenue generated from the findings and that he gets to assign certain people to the mission. Among them are Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), and her pilot brother Johnny (Chris Evans). The fact that Sue is Reed’s ex is a source of tension within the group, as she is obviously still hurt and bitter over Reed’s inability to look at her and life in ways that are not based upon analytical science.
Despite the issues, the crew arrives at the station and the test is going according to plan. That is until an unexpected situation arises, which causes the team to get caught in the storm with the shields lowered, exposing them all to the storm’s radiation.
Back on earth, the crew awakens to find themselves in quarantine and suffering no ill effects from the accident. The failure of the mission is of great concern for Doom. His investors are using this as a reason to pull their support, which in turn is causing his stock to drop rapidly.
In time, Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben start to show amazing abilities resulting from their exposure to the storm. Johnny can become a human fireball, Reed can stretch his body to amazing lengths, Sue can become invisible and project force fields, and Ben has become a living wall of rock, capable of great feats of strength.
Since Ben is no longer able to pass as a human, he feels like a freak and is shunned by his wife, causing him much anger and depression. It is due to this that the team becomes noticed by the media who dub them the Fantastic 4 after watching them in action.
The resulting fame causes the team to withdraw, save for Johnny who basks in the glory and attention heaped upon him. It is against this changing dynamic that the team must find a way to restore themselves to their normal state and to discover what is causing their new found abilities.
The Fantastic 4 are not the only ones who changed. Doom is becoming more and more angry and violent as he blames Reed for the failure of his company. Victor also has the ability to hurl deadly bolts of energy from his body which is quickly becoming metallic.
As fans of the comic know, it will not take long for Doom and the Fantastic 4 to face off, paving the way for a final confrontation. While I went in not expecting much from the film, I must say I was surprised. Yes, the film has a thin plot, and fairly basic characters and action, but it is also above all fun.
The dynamic between the characters is enjoyable, as is the humor which accurately captures the tone and feel of the comic. Some purists will take exception with some of the liberties taken, such as Doom being on the trip to space and other variations on his character which are not part of the original comic.
Alba and Evans tend to come off at times as airheads but they stay true to their characters throughout. Gruffudd plays Reed with modesty and charm that works well in the film and shows that he is a star on the rise. Praise should be heaped upon Chiklis and McMahon who could easily have become lost behind their costumes. Theygive very human and compelling performances. Chiklis captures the duality of Grimm as he battles his despair over his physical appearance with his desire to do what is right. McMahon does riveting work as the man pushed over the edge and becomes fueled by a desire for revenge and power. The fury and evil upon his face and in his walk shows him as a man of menace and danger.
I for one would have liked to have seen a bit more action in the film but as it stands, it is not as bad as some of the trailers hinted that it might be. If you do not mind thin plots and characters, you may be able to sit back and enjoy this film for what it is, a simple summer escape. Here is hoping that we will see the “Fantastic 4” up on the big screen as the next franchise series from Marvel.
The film was never released and has gone on to become a popular bootleg amongst comic fans. The ensuing rights for the film were also sold, and for almost a decade Fox has worked in bringing the comic to the big screen.
After years of languishing, the film finally got on the fast track and under the helm of Director Tim Story and features a dynamic cast headed by some of the biggest emerging superstars in Hollywood.
Ioan Gruffudd stars as Reed Richards, a brilliant yet recently bankrupt scientist who, along with his friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), is visiting famed scientist Victor Von Doom (Julian Mc Mahon), in an effort to get his latest venture funded.
Reed is convinced that an approaching storm in space is the key to unlocking vast amounts of genetic secrets and that the shielding on Doom’s space station allows for safe study of the very rare phenomenon.
Doom agrees to the venture in exchange for 75% of all revenue generated from the findings and that he gets to assign certain people to the mission. Among them are Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), and her pilot brother Johnny (Chris Evans). The fact that Sue is Reed’s ex is a source of tension within the group, as she is obviously still hurt and bitter over Reed’s inability to look at her and life in ways that are not based upon analytical science.
Despite the issues, the crew arrives at the station and the test is going according to plan. That is until an unexpected situation arises, which causes the team to get caught in the storm with the shields lowered, exposing them all to the storm’s radiation.
Back on earth, the crew awakens to find themselves in quarantine and suffering no ill effects from the accident. The failure of the mission is of great concern for Doom. His investors are using this as a reason to pull their support, which in turn is causing his stock to drop rapidly.
In time, Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben start to show amazing abilities resulting from their exposure to the storm. Johnny can become a human fireball, Reed can stretch his body to amazing lengths, Sue can become invisible and project force fields, and Ben has become a living wall of rock, capable of great feats of strength.
Since Ben is no longer able to pass as a human, he feels like a freak and is shunned by his wife, causing him much anger and depression. It is due to this that the team becomes noticed by the media who dub them the Fantastic 4 after watching them in action.
The resulting fame causes the team to withdraw, save for Johnny who basks in the glory and attention heaped upon him. It is against this changing dynamic that the team must find a way to restore themselves to their normal state and to discover what is causing their new found abilities.
The Fantastic 4 are not the only ones who changed. Doom is becoming more and more angry and violent as he blames Reed for the failure of his company. Victor also has the ability to hurl deadly bolts of energy from his body which is quickly becoming metallic.
As fans of the comic know, it will not take long for Doom and the Fantastic 4 to face off, paving the way for a final confrontation. While I went in not expecting much from the film, I must say I was surprised. Yes, the film has a thin plot, and fairly basic characters and action, but it is also above all fun.
The dynamic between the characters is enjoyable, as is the humor which accurately captures the tone and feel of the comic. Some purists will take exception with some of the liberties taken, such as Doom being on the trip to space and other variations on his character which are not part of the original comic.
Alba and Evans tend to come off at times as airheads but they stay true to their characters throughout. Gruffudd plays Reed with modesty and charm that works well in the film and shows that he is a star on the rise. Praise should be heaped upon Chiklis and McMahon who could easily have become lost behind their costumes. Theygive very human and compelling performances. Chiklis captures the duality of Grimm as he battles his despair over his physical appearance with his desire to do what is right. McMahon does riveting work as the man pushed over the edge and becomes fueled by a desire for revenge and power. The fury and evil upon his face and in his walk shows him as a man of menace and danger.
I for one would have liked to have seen a bit more action in the film but as it stands, it is not as bad as some of the trailers hinted that it might be. If you do not mind thin plots and characters, you may be able to sit back and enjoy this film for what it is, a simple summer escape. Here is hoping that we will see the “Fantastic 4” up on the big screen as the next franchise series from Marvel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Mirror, Mirror in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I’m honest I initially thought the tagline to this Snow White twisted tale novel was a massive plot spoiler but, when you are 300 pages into a book and no-one has eaten a poisoned apple, it may be the ideal opportunity to admit you were wrong. This book is not that simple!
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky thrill-ride of a movie, this is sure to be the ticket!
Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is a pulse-pounding, jukebox-jamming blast! In this wildly entertaining crime thriller, a young man called Baby is the perennial pedal-pushing getaway driver for an Atlanta crime boss known as Doc. The two of them have worked countless jobs together, and in Doc’s mind, Baby is the only one worthy behind the wheel. Unbeknownst to Doc, however, Baby plans to wipe his hands clean and hit the road for good as soon as the opportunity arrives. Tensions steadily rise as this perfect getaway driver tries to find a way out and get away from his life of crime.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The mid 90’s was a strange time for movies. Sure, there were quite a few remembered fondly (just like with any era) but there were also many movies that are forgotten due to their ridiculousness. It was a time that gave us the style of adaptions on par with Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, or the two Joel Schumacher Batman films. Likewise, there was a Judge Dredd film right in the middle of that time period.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.