Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a beloved classic is never easy task but that is what Disney is attempting to do with “Mary Poppins Returns”. This time out Emily Blunt takes on the magical umbrella of the no-nonsense but whimsical Nanny made famous by the series of books by PL Travers and of course the beloved classic starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke.
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Ian Anderson recommended Classic FM Presents... by Alfie Boe in Music (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Rental (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Business startup partners Charlie (Dan Stevens) and Mina (Sheila Vand) are celebrating the success of their company by looking at Airbnb rentals for a weekend getaway. As Mina casually rests on Charlie, looking over his shoulder at the amazing, but expensive house they’re thinking of renting, you get the impression they are a couple. That is, until Charlie’s brother Josh (Jeremy Allen White) walks in, and we learn that it is Josh and Mina who are together. And that the weekend trip is to include Charlie’s wife Michelle (Alison Brie).
Some obstacles to a perfect weekend arise before the foursome even make it to their rented house. Josh has decided to bring along his dog, Reggie, a violation of the homeowners no-pets rule, and Mina is concerned that the homeowner may be racist. She had tried to book the exact same house just an hour before Charlie did but was turned down, and she believes her Middle-Eastern name (her surname is Mohammadi) was the reason.
They arrive at the idyllic house, set out in the woods and right by the ocean, where they are greeted by the caretaker, and brother of the homeowner, Taylor (Toby Huss). He’s not exactly a welcoming barrel of laughs though – unhappy at the group for arriving an hour late and definitely giving off some racist vibes towards Mina which only add fuel to the concerns she’d raised in the car earlier.
With Taylor gone, the couples begin to settle into their weekend break with some music, drink and drugs. When Josh and Michelle decide to get an early night in preparation for a planned hike the next day, business partners Charlie and Mina decide to go and try out the hottub. And, well, I’m sure you can figure out how much of a mistake that turns out to be. To top it all off, somebody seems to be watching the group from afar…
The Rental is the directorial debut of actor Dave Franco. It’s a horror movie, but spends half of its 88 minute runtime with very little happening at all. If it wasn’t for the foreboding music, and the occasional hint at some sort of stalker, you’d think this was just a drama about two couples getting themselves into a whole heap of trouble in a strangers house.
When things do begin to shift, some potentially interesting twists and plot setups quickly fall by the wayside, as The Rental slips into being just a very generic slasher movie with nothing we haven’t seen before. I suddenly realised just how interesting that first half was in comparison and what a waste of a great cast it was.
Some obstacles to a perfect weekend arise before the foursome even make it to their rented house. Josh has decided to bring along his dog, Reggie, a violation of the homeowners no-pets rule, and Mina is concerned that the homeowner may be racist. She had tried to book the exact same house just an hour before Charlie did but was turned down, and she believes her Middle-Eastern name (her surname is Mohammadi) was the reason.
They arrive at the idyllic house, set out in the woods and right by the ocean, where they are greeted by the caretaker, and brother of the homeowner, Taylor (Toby Huss). He’s not exactly a welcoming barrel of laughs though – unhappy at the group for arriving an hour late and definitely giving off some racist vibes towards Mina which only add fuel to the concerns she’d raised in the car earlier.
With Taylor gone, the couples begin to settle into their weekend break with some music, drink and drugs. When Josh and Michelle decide to get an early night in preparation for a planned hike the next day, business partners Charlie and Mina decide to go and try out the hottub. And, well, I’m sure you can figure out how much of a mistake that turns out to be. To top it all off, somebody seems to be watching the group from afar…
The Rental is the directorial debut of actor Dave Franco. It’s a horror movie, but spends half of its 88 minute runtime with very little happening at all. If it wasn’t for the foreboding music, and the occasional hint at some sort of stalker, you’d think this was just a drama about two couples getting themselves into a whole heap of trouble in a strangers house.
When things do begin to shift, some potentially interesting twists and plot setups quickly fall by the wayside, as The Rental slips into being just a very generic slasher movie with nothing we haven’t seen before. I suddenly realised just how interesting that first half was in comparison and what a waste of a great cast it was.
RavenclawPrincess913 (253 KP) rated A Multitude of Dreams in Books
Sep 10, 2023
Favorite book of this year
Title: A Multitude of dreams
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Author: Mara Rutherford
My favorite read of the year would be A Multitude of Dreams by Mara Rutherford. In the beginning of this book it takes place during the after math of a horrible plague called the Mori Roja which basically causes the patient to bleed out and die. Only ways people can survive the mori Roja are to die and be reborn, never come in contact with the plague or be immune.
Princess Imogen of Goslind has been locked in the palace with many other higher born citizens for the past four years during the plague she wants to be set free same with many others but the king will not allow that. After Nico impersonating a prince shows up they quickly learn being locked up is what helped them survive so long but it is no longer possible when the food runs out.
When Nico realizes that Lord Crane is a reborn and learns of his plans he decided to impersonate a prince who died on his way to meet the princess for a marriage agreement. He died by a reborn. He does this to try to warn and save the people of the palace but he has no success when Lord Crane and other reborns invade the palace killing many.
This being the best book I read of 2023 I am having a hard time choosing just one part I loved the most in it. I did enjoy that Princess Giselle got the karma that was coming for her it was one hundred percent deserved. The story was really well written and extremely hard to put down. Another part I loved were all the moments between Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. Honestly only part of this book I disliked was that Jocelyn and Imogen didn't end up together. I thought they would because they were giving off more that friend vibes with the kisses and stuff.
When it comes to the characters my favorites were Jocelyn and Princess Imogen. I loved them from the beginning. One character who gave bad vibes and I knew couldn't be trust was Lord Crane. I could just tell there was something up with him. On the other hand Nico and Colin were both very trustworthy from the beginning. I didn't like Giselle, Henry or Branson either. Princess Giselle I could tell she was a backstabber. Henry I could tell he had an alternative motive and couldn't be trusted. Same with Branson. This book had a very good character development.
I recommend reading this if books based during or after a plague interests you. I also recommend if you enjoy books about vampires.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Jurassic Shark
Ah the shark attack movie. A genre that has over the years changed itself from impactful horror suspense thriller to cheesy, throwaway popcorn entertainment. Apart from when Steven Spielberg changed cinema forever with his 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, audiences have been given few treats in the decades that followed.
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Cold Day in Hell in Books
Jan 29, 2018
Engaging characters (2 more)
Great courtroom scene
Strong female lead
Engaging debut mystery
Lauren Riley is a thirty-eight-year-old twice-divorced mother of two college age daughters, working cold case homicides. She has a great, younger cold case partner, Reese, and carries a torch for her ex-husband, Mark. Meanwhile, her ex, Joe Wheeler, is a Garden Valley homicide detective and a total (excuse my language) a-hole, who brazenly punches Lauren in the mouth after learning she's working against him on a case. Lauren's working two jobs -- her daytime gig on cold cases and also as a certified Private Investigator (PI). Lauren is hired by her nemesis, attorney Frank Violanti, to work the high-profile case of David, who is accused of murdering Katherine Vine, the beautiful, younger wife of Anthony Vine, who runs a successful chain of gyms. Lauren knows taking the case could stir up some issues in her department, with the DA, and with Reese. But in her gut, she feels that David is innocent. Can she and Frank make peace and prove it?
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”