Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Baby Doll in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly Id like to thank Netgalley and Random House UK, Cornerstone for the opportunity to read this book.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
<b><i>BABY DOLL is the most tense thriller you will read this year.</b></i> no it isnt.
<b>1.5 stars</b>
I was looking forward to giving this a read, it sounded like an exciting thriller; woman escapes from her captor and now shes trying to rebuild her life and future. But it doesnt really start out that way everything kind of falls into place for Lily in the first few pages and so you think, is this going to be as exciting as I first hoped? Well the answer to that is no, its not.
Its all very over the top. <i>Every single thing</i> Abby & Lily do is grossly OTT. I mean I dont personally know how I, or my family would react if something like this happened but it all seems very overplayed, cliche and cheesy.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/MGmnFOZRFRo4w/giphy.gif"; width="370" height="220" alt="yaaaawn"/>
Its also a bit ridiculous, not the kidnapping and abuse, of course <b>thats</b> not, but everything else is. The town seems raving mad, no wonder no one noticed a psychopath in their midst! I mean for one, this town needs to sort out its police force, theyre <b>so</b> unprofessional! <spoiler>Sleeping around and beating people to a pulp. Stupid. <b>PLUS</b> Why were they unable to get Abby off of Rick when she was stabbing him? It felt like they were all just standing around and watching her until they thought, OK thatll do now.</spoiler>
I dont think Overton did a particularly good job at portraying the characters. They all seemed very wooden and lifeless. I found them all to be extremely childish, shallow and very selfish and so couldnt connect with any of them. They also felt completely fake, like the things they did and said were not something you could imagine a real person doing or saying. We were supposed to empathise with Lily but it just wasnt possible for me, she was cold and boring and I think the multiple POVs was a bad call on Overtons part because it means we cant spend that time getting to know the character and instead have to put up with everyone else's junk <i>(cough cough the mother's affair cough cough)</i> that we dont care about, which disconnects us entirely from the story. I would go so far as to say I felt this story was more about idiotic Abby than it was about boring ol Lily. We also couldnt attach to Lily because this book moved so ridiculously fast! I couldnt keep up, whats the rush?
I dont think this was very well written either, it all seemed very rushed. Also, why was Eve called Eve one minute and Mom the next? And why couldnt Abby call Mr Hanson by his actual name? We get it, he was your teacher, but youre an adult now, with a kid and this man ruined your sister's life, would you really be calling him Mr Hanson all the time. It was like I was reading the POV of a 6 year old.
I admit the twist was quite a shock and I hadnt seen <i>that</i> particular ending coming about, but I still thought it was a bit silly, hence the extra half a star I gave the book. <spoiler>Can we please note that this (the murder) is like the 5th time in the book when Abby does something for Lily but really shes just being selfish and doing it for herself because she cant get a fucking grip.</spoiler>
Too "family drama" for me. I wanted a fast paced thriller not some sappy, emotional love story. This book was supposed to focus on the broken Lily rebuilding her life with her loving family surrounding her, but instead turned into a ridiculous love triangle story that I couldnt care less about. Give me more of Ricks POV if you must, <b>anything to get me away from twin sisters fighting over one stupid man.</b> Abby was so fucking annoying when it came to Wes, she was so desperately needy for him all the while putting on a stupid I-dont-need-you front. Deal with it Abby, you love him and he loves you, <b>just fucking deal with it.</b>
In the end I skipped the last 10 pages or so, I was done with this book when I was 20% the way through Maybe this would be a good book for people who are into chick-lit/women's fiction - whatever that means, but its not my cup of tea.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018
A very enjoyable DCEU movie!
Before I begin, I just wanted to describe my feelings on the state of the DCEU up until now and hopefully this will be a good indication as to whether or not you're going to agree with me when it comes to Aquaman. So, as I'm sure most people will agree, so far the whole thing has been a bit of a disaster. A rush to try and bottle what Marvel have spent the last 10 years crafting and achieving, with just a handful of below average and inconsistently toned movies. I liked Man of Steel, and I didn't mind Batman V Superman, although I do understand why many people were disappointed. I really enjoyed Wonder Woman, and I found a lot to like within Justice League too. But as for Suicide Squad, well that one was just a ridiculous mess. And with all the uncertainty around the future of Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck in their roles as Superman and Batman, it seems DC still have a long way to go in terms of laying solid foundations for some decent universe building to rival Marvel.
So that brings us to Aquaman, probably the only other character of interest from Justice League who has yet to get his own origin/standalone movie. We got glimpses in Justice League, tastes of the underwater water world, and brief appearances from Amber Heards character Mera, so it's good to be able to expand on what has the potential to be a really strong, interesting character. And under the direction of James Wan, hopefully another welcome deviation from the dark, dull earlier DC movies that received so much criticism.
As far as origin stories go, things get off to a strong start. Lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry finds Atlantean queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) washed up on the rocks one day and takes her in to care for her. They fall in love, eventually giving birth to Arthur. A few years later and it's clear that Atlanna cannot stay. She returns to Atlantis, promising that she'll return to him one day, leaving Thomas to raise Arthur. When we join Arthur again, it's one year following the events of the Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf. Taking care of a bunch of hi-tech pirates who have boarded a submarine, but still finding time to return home to dad for a few beers and a laugh with the locals. He's left the world of Atlantis behind him, having been banished for being a half breed, and feeling anger at the treatment his mother received for giving birth to him. It's not long though before things all start kicking off and he had to return to life under the sea. Half brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) is looking to wage war on the surface world in retaliation for all the destruction and pollution within the seas, and begins trying to gain support from the seven kingdoms. Meanwhile, one of the pirates Aquaman encountered earlier has got his hands on some Atlantean technology, becoming Black Manta and vowing to get his revenge. During an undersea meeting with Vulko, aid to Atlanna and the man responsible for training Arthur as a child, Arthur is urged to find the lost Trident of Atlan, a magic artifact that once belonged to Atlantis’ first ruler. By wielding the trident, Arthur can reclaim his rightful place as king, hopefully uniting the worlds of land and sea.
There is a LOT going on here, and luckily for the most part, it all works relatively well. The quest for the trident is a bit like an Indiana Jones quest - Arthur and Mera have to undertake a trek across, and below, the Sahara desert, a trip to Sicily, a perilous boat trip and a journey to a hidden world deep within the ocean. The Black Manta storyline seems a bit unnecessary and annoying at times, although does provide some great action (and a setup for a sequel). The underwater scenes involving Atlantis and the other kingdoms are absolutely beautiful to look at, very detailed and imaginative, but these are the areas that unfortunately begin to let the movie down. Culminating in an epic underwater battle involving thousands of different creatures and weapons, the movie ends up as just another DCEU CGI overload.
Despite that, I actually had a lot of fun with this movie, and I particularly loved the action. Fluid, balletic fight scenes, with the viewpoint flowing above and around those involved, we follow a character as he powers through walls and roofs, pulling out to reveal and follow other characters in action, the direction of these scenes is extremely effective. Overall, this is definitely a strong step up for the DCEU and a worthy standalone movie. I just hope they can now keep this momentum going.
So that brings us to Aquaman, probably the only other character of interest from Justice League who has yet to get his own origin/standalone movie. We got glimpses in Justice League, tastes of the underwater water world, and brief appearances from Amber Heards character Mera, so it's good to be able to expand on what has the potential to be a really strong, interesting character. And under the direction of James Wan, hopefully another welcome deviation from the dark, dull earlier DC movies that received so much criticism.
As far as origin stories go, things get off to a strong start. Lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry finds Atlantean queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) washed up on the rocks one day and takes her in to care for her. They fall in love, eventually giving birth to Arthur. A few years later and it's clear that Atlanna cannot stay. She returns to Atlantis, promising that she'll return to him one day, leaving Thomas to raise Arthur. When we join Arthur again, it's one year following the events of the Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf. Taking care of a bunch of hi-tech pirates who have boarded a submarine, but still finding time to return home to dad for a few beers and a laugh with the locals. He's left the world of Atlantis behind him, having been banished for being a half breed, and feeling anger at the treatment his mother received for giving birth to him. It's not long though before things all start kicking off and he had to return to life under the sea. Half brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) is looking to wage war on the surface world in retaliation for all the destruction and pollution within the seas, and begins trying to gain support from the seven kingdoms. Meanwhile, one of the pirates Aquaman encountered earlier has got his hands on some Atlantean technology, becoming Black Manta and vowing to get his revenge. During an undersea meeting with Vulko, aid to Atlanna and the man responsible for training Arthur as a child, Arthur is urged to find the lost Trident of Atlan, a magic artifact that once belonged to Atlantis’ first ruler. By wielding the trident, Arthur can reclaim his rightful place as king, hopefully uniting the worlds of land and sea.
There is a LOT going on here, and luckily for the most part, it all works relatively well. The quest for the trident is a bit like an Indiana Jones quest - Arthur and Mera have to undertake a trek across, and below, the Sahara desert, a trip to Sicily, a perilous boat trip and a journey to a hidden world deep within the ocean. The Black Manta storyline seems a bit unnecessary and annoying at times, although does provide some great action (and a setup for a sequel). The underwater scenes involving Atlantis and the other kingdoms are absolutely beautiful to look at, very detailed and imaginative, but these are the areas that unfortunately begin to let the movie down. Culminating in an epic underwater battle involving thousands of different creatures and weapons, the movie ends up as just another DCEU CGI overload.
Despite that, I actually had a lot of fun with this movie, and I particularly loved the action. Fluid, balletic fight scenes, with the viewpoint flowing above and around those involved, we follow a character as he powers through walls and roofs, pulling out to reveal and follow other characters in action, the direction of these scenes is extremely effective. Overall, this is definitely a strong step up for the DCEU and a worthy standalone movie. I just hope they can now keep this momentum going.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Breakthrough (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The fact that this film is based on a true story is incredible to think about. I haven't read the book that was written by the boy's mother or read about the actual incident and events online, I'm not sure I want to. I usually like finding out the differences to the actual stories but I wonder if in this instance it might make me change the way I feel about the film.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
When Men In Black 3 came out 7 years ago I wasn't convinced they'd be able to follow the first two films, but it's probably become my favourite of the franchise for that ending alone. Seeing the trailers for International I was a little dubious but knowing how I felt the last time I was slightly optimistic about it.
*Eyes closed. Pinch bridge of nose. Slow, pained exhale.*
I hate it when the internet is right, it sets a very bad precedent. This film was not good, and it was fairly evident early on. Considering that at the beginning of the film we're seeing a kid discovering aliens for the first time I can't fathom how there is so little wonder and excitement in it. I found myself thinking it was cute, but cute isn't enough to kickstart a film.
I hoped for a while that it was just a slow burner, but after a third of the film had passed it was difficult to hold on to that hope. There was almost nothing that was exciting in it to make you want to ever see it again.
Somehow the effects have got both better and worse at the same time. The aliens in general look a little shoddy, apart from the main evil duo. There are some moments where they turn into a gaseous entity, their appearance changes to a galaxy like blur, and it's actually pretty beautiful to see... but then they turn back.
Tessa Thompson plays our obsessed wannabe woman in black. Relatively speaking her performance was quite good. I've only seen her in things from the last couple of years, and apart from Ragnarok I haven't been overly impressed with the roles she's played but Molly was a nice addition to her roster.
Chris Hemsworth... oh my dear boy... I'm not convinced that he should do comedy. Thor is great in Ragnarok but outside of that I'm not overly fond. There's only so far handsome and a little dumb can get you, and I think Thor and Kevin really used all of that up. When he's so good at drama I'm not sure why he keeps picking the same type of comedic pieces, as a dramatic actor in 12 Strong and Bad Times At The El Royale he was great and I really want to go back and see more of his serious roles. H in this is basically just Kevin from Ghostbusters in a black suit with a few more brain cells. It's a terribly scripted role and a massively disappointing lead in a series that has so much possibility behind it.
The standout performance for me is from Kumail Nanjiani as Pawny. Pawny is fantastically scripted, to the point that I wondered if someone else had written his part. The wonderful thing about it was that I could feel Nanjiani in everything that Pawny was doing, if you'd had him as a real-life character it would have been (almost) exactly the same performance. The only times I laughed were Pawny moments and I was genuinely annoyed when they were interrupted by the rest of the film.
Our four main supporting actors are a bit of a mix. Emma Thompson gives a repeat performance as O and ooooo is she glorious as always. Liam Neeson plays High T, the head of the London branch of MIB, it's fairly non-descript, sadly he's no Rip Torn. Rafe Spall plays Agent C who's a bit of a snitch. He has a rather slow start and when we meet him it's not a great scene for anyone involved, I found him to be terribly boring but thankfully his part does improve as we get deeper into it. Lastly we've got the surprise inclusion of Rebecca Ferguson as H's ex-girlfriend, Riza... I just... what was the point of her character?
"But the bad guy fights must have been good?"... am I the only one that felt like there wasn't really a bad guy in this? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of options but we don't see enough of any of them to be really invested in the fact that they're bad. And when it comes to action scenes... were there really any of them either? I just... I can't even... ugh...
Considering I wasn't buzzing about this before I went in I'm amazed that I felt so disappointed by it. There was very little to enjoy beyond Nanjiani's Pawny, and hardly anything to workout as you watched because the trailers made it fairly obvious what was going to happen. You always hope that new instalments of series are going to stand up to its predecessors or at least not be so shit that they make you regret spending time watching it... yeah...
I want to like this more and I may give it a second chance after the slight success of Aladdin's second viewing, but no matter what happens, this is still going to be ranked fourth in the series.
What you should do
I really wouldn't bother watching this, spend your time rewatching the previous three instalments.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like the only amazing thing from this film, one Pawny, please.
*Eyes closed. Pinch bridge of nose. Slow, pained exhale.*
I hate it when the internet is right, it sets a very bad precedent. This film was not good, and it was fairly evident early on. Considering that at the beginning of the film we're seeing a kid discovering aliens for the first time I can't fathom how there is so little wonder and excitement in it. I found myself thinking it was cute, but cute isn't enough to kickstart a film.
I hoped for a while that it was just a slow burner, but after a third of the film had passed it was difficult to hold on to that hope. There was almost nothing that was exciting in it to make you want to ever see it again.
Somehow the effects have got both better and worse at the same time. The aliens in general look a little shoddy, apart from the main evil duo. There are some moments where they turn into a gaseous entity, their appearance changes to a galaxy like blur, and it's actually pretty beautiful to see... but then they turn back.
Tessa Thompson plays our obsessed wannabe woman in black. Relatively speaking her performance was quite good. I've only seen her in things from the last couple of years, and apart from Ragnarok I haven't been overly impressed with the roles she's played but Molly was a nice addition to her roster.
Chris Hemsworth... oh my dear boy... I'm not convinced that he should do comedy. Thor is great in Ragnarok but outside of that I'm not overly fond. There's only so far handsome and a little dumb can get you, and I think Thor and Kevin really used all of that up. When he's so good at drama I'm not sure why he keeps picking the same type of comedic pieces, as a dramatic actor in 12 Strong and Bad Times At The El Royale he was great and I really want to go back and see more of his serious roles. H in this is basically just Kevin from Ghostbusters in a black suit with a few more brain cells. It's a terribly scripted role and a massively disappointing lead in a series that has so much possibility behind it.
The standout performance for me is from Kumail Nanjiani as Pawny. Pawny is fantastically scripted, to the point that I wondered if someone else had written his part. The wonderful thing about it was that I could feel Nanjiani in everything that Pawny was doing, if you'd had him as a real-life character it would have been (almost) exactly the same performance. The only times I laughed were Pawny moments and I was genuinely annoyed when they were interrupted by the rest of the film.
Our four main supporting actors are a bit of a mix. Emma Thompson gives a repeat performance as O and ooooo is she glorious as always. Liam Neeson plays High T, the head of the London branch of MIB, it's fairly non-descript, sadly he's no Rip Torn. Rafe Spall plays Agent C who's a bit of a snitch. He has a rather slow start and when we meet him it's not a great scene for anyone involved, I found him to be terribly boring but thankfully his part does improve as we get deeper into it. Lastly we've got the surprise inclusion of Rebecca Ferguson as H's ex-girlfriend, Riza... I just... what was the point of her character?
"But the bad guy fights must have been good?"... am I the only one that felt like there wasn't really a bad guy in this? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of options but we don't see enough of any of them to be really invested in the fact that they're bad. And when it comes to action scenes... were there really any of them either? I just... I can't even... ugh...
Considering I wasn't buzzing about this before I went in I'm amazed that I felt so disappointed by it. There was very little to enjoy beyond Nanjiani's Pawny, and hardly anything to workout as you watched because the trailers made it fairly obvious what was going to happen. You always hope that new instalments of series are going to stand up to its predecessors or at least not be so shit that they make you regret spending time watching it... yeah...
I want to like this more and I may give it a second chance after the slight success of Aladdin's second viewing, but no matter what happens, this is still going to be ranked fourth in the series.
What you should do
I really wouldn't bother watching this, spend your time rewatching the previous three instalments.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like the only amazing thing from this film, one Pawny, please.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Straight out of the blocks I want to say that there's excellent fluffy in the shape of a golden retriever puppy, and we also get some brilliant chompers in the form of an army of sharks... and you know how I feel about sharks.
The other thing I want to say, and I'm sorry in advance for the fact that it might annoy you if you haven't been to see it yet, but every wistful shot of the sky over the ocean seems to look like the Free Willy poster shot. Not even kidding. It was the first thing I thought when I saw it. Right there >>> they might have just photoshopped it in, I really don't know.
But I'm getting away from the reason I'm doing this... Aquaman.
I'm please to say that (as you can see from my rating) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. DC have really managed to pull it back. I was a firm believer that it was DC TV and Marvel films that were the winners, when they went off and tried the other side it wasn't such a success for either of them. DC seem to have found the magic formula though and hot on the trail of Wonder Woman and Justice League this feels like a real winner.
Yes I enjoyed Justice League, we're not going to argue about it now!
The attention to detail in the effects is impressive. You just have to look at all the minute details in the reflections on the glass to see that. We're also treated to a lot of ocean scenery that I'm sure you could comb over for hours and still not spot everything hidden in there.
There are moments where the effects become a little iffy though. The tremendous scene where Aquaman and Mera are being chased over roof tops for example. We get wide shots that leave little room to scrimp on the effort and they look visually stunning. At the same time though one of the bad guys is chasing Mera by running through the buildings below her and the graphics on him just don't hold the same impact at all.
Aquaman's underwater scenes actually didn't look a lot different than any normal film apart from the fact that everyone tends to be hovering in mid air/water with ballet pose toes. But just for a minute let us talk about the hair and the capes. Both floaty things in water. Both awful to look at on screen. It's bizarrely unnatural and really sticks out like a sore thumb from the first time you see it. At least it's not something that all the characters had, some of them had their hair tied back, and then they've got some kind of underwater hair gel (they could market that really well on land), both of those options gave scenes a little less distraction.
The first action sequence we get with Aquaman in the sub has some amazing camera work in it. We turn and flip with the characters following the motion of the body as it's being tossed around by our hero. It makes for an exciting scene, it's honestly not something I remember seeing in other films. This sequence also had a rather impressive use of a doorway as a lethal weapon.
While Aquaman is definitely a light-hearted superhero movie it does have it's deep moments. (And I'm not just talking about the ocean... no? Fine! No ridiculous jokes.) Manta and his father have a particularly moving moment that I wasn't expecting at all, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Michael Beach work so well together in that scene that it was a real shame it was over so quickly. Jason Momoa also gets some great speeches throughout the film, but in his case they are taken away from him at the last moment. I get it, he's an edgy no nonsense kind of a character that says it like it is. But let him just have one speech where he doesn't ruin it at the end by calling someone a dick.
Now I'll admit that it didn't hurt that this movie had some very attractive people in it that were wet a lot of the time... you know you were thinking it too! I do however want to call them out on their Bond-esque emerging from the water scene... it didn't work, find your own niche.
I'm honestly amazed at how many notes I wrote, I've got so many thing I want to talk about but honestly we'd be here all day so I'm just going to highlight the rest for your free interpretation: superhero landings, power slides, "little baby oceans", drumming octopus, killer narwhals?, bar montage, Ant-Man And The Wasp rip off credits, rip off Bifrost, stop pollution the oceans it's pissing off the Atlantians. Oh, and Julie Andrews was in it!
What you should do
This is a very good superhero movie. There's love, there's action, there's friendship, and more importantly they have a cute dog. You should definitely see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I do love the water, so some Atlantian superpowers wouldn't go amiss. There's no way I currently look that graceful in the water.
The other thing I want to say, and I'm sorry in advance for the fact that it might annoy you if you haven't been to see it yet, but every wistful shot of the sky over the ocean seems to look like the Free Willy poster shot. Not even kidding. It was the first thing I thought when I saw it. Right there >>> they might have just photoshopped it in, I really don't know.
But I'm getting away from the reason I'm doing this... Aquaman.
I'm please to say that (as you can see from my rating) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. DC have really managed to pull it back. I was a firm believer that it was DC TV and Marvel films that were the winners, when they went off and tried the other side it wasn't such a success for either of them. DC seem to have found the magic formula though and hot on the trail of Wonder Woman and Justice League this feels like a real winner.
Yes I enjoyed Justice League, we're not going to argue about it now!
The attention to detail in the effects is impressive. You just have to look at all the minute details in the reflections on the glass to see that. We're also treated to a lot of ocean scenery that I'm sure you could comb over for hours and still not spot everything hidden in there.
There are moments where the effects become a little iffy though. The tremendous scene where Aquaman and Mera are being chased over roof tops for example. We get wide shots that leave little room to scrimp on the effort and they look visually stunning. At the same time though one of the bad guys is chasing Mera by running through the buildings below her and the graphics on him just don't hold the same impact at all.
Aquaman's underwater scenes actually didn't look a lot different than any normal film apart from the fact that everyone tends to be hovering in mid air/water with ballet pose toes. But just for a minute let us talk about the hair and the capes. Both floaty things in water. Both awful to look at on screen. It's bizarrely unnatural and really sticks out like a sore thumb from the first time you see it. At least it's not something that all the characters had, some of them had their hair tied back, and then they've got some kind of underwater hair gel (they could market that really well on land), both of those options gave scenes a little less distraction.
The first action sequence we get with Aquaman in the sub has some amazing camera work in it. We turn and flip with the characters following the motion of the body as it's being tossed around by our hero. It makes for an exciting scene, it's honestly not something I remember seeing in other films. This sequence also had a rather impressive use of a doorway as a lethal weapon.
While Aquaman is definitely a light-hearted superhero movie it does have it's deep moments. (And I'm not just talking about the ocean... no? Fine! No ridiculous jokes.) Manta and his father have a particularly moving moment that I wasn't expecting at all, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Michael Beach work so well together in that scene that it was a real shame it was over so quickly. Jason Momoa also gets some great speeches throughout the film, but in his case they are taken away from him at the last moment. I get it, he's an edgy no nonsense kind of a character that says it like it is. But let him just have one speech where he doesn't ruin it at the end by calling someone a dick.
Now I'll admit that it didn't hurt that this movie had some very attractive people in it that were wet a lot of the time... you know you were thinking it too! I do however want to call them out on their Bond-esque emerging from the water scene... it didn't work, find your own niche.
I'm honestly amazed at how many notes I wrote, I've got so many thing I want to talk about but honestly we'd be here all day so I'm just going to highlight the rest for your free interpretation: superhero landings, power slides, "little baby oceans", drumming octopus, killer narwhals?, bar montage, Ant-Man And The Wasp rip off credits, rip off Bifrost, stop pollution the oceans it's pissing off the Atlantians. Oh, and Julie Andrews was in it!
What you should do
This is a very good superhero movie. There's love, there's action, there's friendship, and more importantly they have a cute dog. You should definitely see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I do love the water, so some Atlantian superpowers wouldn't go amiss. There's no way I currently look that graceful in the water.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Apr 19, 2019
Strong writing (1 more)
Good characters
Run-on sentences (1 more)
No explanations for paranormal activity
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you're looking for a scary story, 'The Haunting of Hill House' just doesn't add up.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.
The story is still worth reading because Jackson's story telling is something that is missing in literature today. The reader is introduced to characters that are different enough to be interesting; their development is just right that it leaves the reader satisfied. The story moves along well enough that the pace keeps us from getting bored. And each turn of the page keeps the reader guessing what is going to happen next- a must for any ghost story.
In 'The Haunting of Hill House,' Jackson mostly focuses on the character Eleanor - a woman who recently lost the sickly mother she had taken care of for years, to receiving an invitation for a paranormal experiment at the infamous Hill House. Eleanor also seems to be the main character affected by the house, not only having her name written on a wall, but also having her named called out by spirits during an automatic writing session with them.
Our first introduction to the Hill House happens as Eleanor arrives: "No Human eye can isolate the unhappy coincidence of line and place which suggests evil in the face of a house, and yet somehow a maniac juxtaposition, a badly turned angle, some chance meeting of roof and sky, turned Hill House into a place of despair, more frightening because the face of Hill House seemed awake, with a watchfulness from the blank windows and a touch of glee in the eyebrow of a cornice. Almost any house, caught unexpectedly or at an odd angle, can turn a deeply humorous look on a watching person; even a mischievous little chimney, or a dormer like a dimple, can catch up a beholder with a sense of fellowship; but a house arrogant and hating, never off guard, can only be evil. This house, which seemed somehow to have formed itself, flying together into its own powerful pattern under the hands of its builders, fitting itself into its own construction of lines and angles, reared its great head back against the sky without concession to humanity. It was a house without kindness, never meant to be lived in , not a fit place for people or for love or for hope. Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay as it was until it was destroyed."
We never see Hill House through any other character's eyes, and the viewpoints mostly come from Eleanor (a missed opportunity,I think). Everyone who arrives at the house feels uneasy about it: doors and curtains close on their own, unexplained banging noises down the hallways(only at night), the chattering and laughter of children, and with an oddly placed cold spot. Yet,to the reader's dismay, nothing is fully explained by the end of the story - no apparitions show up, no one seems harmed by anything unseen (although, the character, Luke, suddenly shows up with a bruised face that is never discussed), and the reader ends up wondering if this really is a product of mass psychosis. It almost seems like Jackson ended the story abruptly just to finish it(the book is only a little under 200 pages). She set up wonderful scenarios, but without explanations, we're left with a very empty feeling.
Nearing the end of the book, the doctor, John Montague, who has ran the entire experiment, has his wife,Mrs. Montague,arrive a few days later, who seems to know more about contacting spirits than he does: "The library? I think it might do; books are frequently very good carriers, you know. Materializations are often best produced in rooms where there are books. I cannot think of any time when materialization was in any way hampered by the presence of books." And with the arrival of Dr. Montague's wife, we get one of the major experiences in the entire book. Although her character is quite annoying- even seen through the eyes of other characters- she brings some of the most ghost story elements, one of which is her automatic writing sessions: "Planchette felt very strongly about a nun, John. Perhaps something of the sort- a dark, vague figure, even- has been seen in the neighborhood? Villagers terrified when staggering home late at night?" None of the characters, besides Mrs. Montague's companion, Arthur, believe her automatic writing sessions are real, even after Eleanor's name is brought up during one. As I stated before, without any explanations, the reader is even led to believe that nothing was meant to come of these sessions whatsoever.
The ghost story elements may not have been strong in the story, but the characters make up for them. They constantly question what they are experiencing and/or seeing, they question their surroundings, and they question each other -Jackson does an amazing job weaving paranoia into the story line.
One of the more shocking and unbelievable scenes is when Eleanor is suddenly not fearful of the house anymore: "And here I am, she thought. Here I am inside. It was not cold at all, but deliciously, fondly warm. It was light enough for her to see the iron stairway curving around and around up to the tower, and the little door at the top. Under her feet the stone floor moved caressingly, rubbing itself against the soles of her feet, and all around the soft air touched her, stirring her hair, drifting against her fingers, coming in a light breath across her mouth, and she danced in circles. No stone lions for me, she thought, no oleanders; I have broken the spell of Hill House and somehow come inside. I am home, she thought, and stopped in wonder at the thought. I am home, I am home, she thought; now to climb." It was as if Eleanor was a completely different person in just a few pages.
I do have a couple of problems with 'The Haunting of Hill House,' mostly centering around the use of run-on sentences and extra long paragraphs. The run-on sentences are a waste of time because Jackson seems to merely elaborate on something that could be easily explained or experienced with fewer words. The paragraphs, however, need to be broken up for scene transitioning purposes -when she transitions from one scene to the next, she can confuse the reader with them: one paragraph will have all the characters in the dining area, but in that same paragraph, just a few sentences down, Jackson has the characters suddenly in the parlor,drinking Brandy. Maybe the intention was to make the reader feel paranoid and uneasy like the characters in the book, but it was certainly not needed with the way of Jackson's style of writing.
With all that said, it's easy to see why this book is a popular classic. The writing is strong, using enough descriptions to put the reader in Hill House with all of its paranormal beings. And no matter who you are, you are able to find at least one of the lead characters as a favorite. I feel the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paranormal, because Jackson brings out the occult interest that was going on around 1959 - when she published 'The Haunting of Hill House;' everything from cold spots to the use of a planchette for automatic writing.
I recommend this book, but if you're looking for scares, you must look elsewhere.