Search
Search results
Andre Gregory recommended Cries and Whispers (1972) in Movies (curated)
Chris Parnell recommended You Only Live Twice (1967) in Movies (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Who Killed Captain Alex? (2010) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
"𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦."
Not so much a so-bad-it's-good flick - since at its core, taking consideration into what it had to work with - this is actually a pretty (unironically) great adventure. Seldom has a poster so accurately captured the essence of a film before I mean just *look* at that beast lol. Of course it's got abundant clenched, cocked fistfuls of kitsch, sure - but the base script is sound, and I find it tantamount to insult that much lesser works like 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘥 get lauded for their (nevertheless still lovely) performances from non-actors while the straight-up spectacular work the entirety of the cast gives here is written off as being undeserving of such an appropriate distinction. The action is, as you've heard, mesmerizingly batshit (and surprisingly well shot + edited + performed) and I'm impressed with how endlessly quotable this is - I cannot understate how much this is some God-tier dialogue (peppered with a comically bizarre Emcee track for the ages). One of the top-dog Z-movie exploitation flicks you'll find - very great work, let alone for a first timer given the conditions. It's graciously free on YouTube so there's no excuse not to give this and the director's other (also dope) works the attention they deserve.
Not so much a so-bad-it's-good flick - since at its core, taking consideration into what it had to work with - this is actually a pretty (unironically) great adventure. Seldom has a poster so accurately captured the essence of a film before I mean just *look* at that beast lol. Of course it's got abundant clenched, cocked fistfuls of kitsch, sure - but the base script is sound, and I find it tantamount to insult that much lesser works like 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘥 get lauded for their (nevertheless still lovely) performances from non-actors while the straight-up spectacular work the entirety of the cast gives here is written off as being undeserving of such an appropriate distinction. The action is, as you've heard, mesmerizingly batshit (and surprisingly well shot + edited + performed) and I'm impressed with how endlessly quotable this is - I cannot understate how much this is some God-tier dialogue (peppered with a comically bizarre Emcee track for the ages). One of the top-dog Z-movie exploitation flicks you'll find - very great work, let alone for a first timer given the conditions. It's graciously free on YouTube so there's no excuse not to give this and the director's other (also dope) works the attention they deserve.
Fatal Fudge Swirl
9.0
Rate It
Book
A movie production brings drama—and murder—to a close-knit New England village, forcing Riley...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stowaway (2021) in Movies
Apr 30, 2021
Good physics but otherwise bland and forgettable
In "Stowaway", three astronauts - Commander Marina Bartlett (Toni Collette), doctor and scientist Zoe Levensen (Anna Kendrick) and scientist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) - have left earth on a mission to Mars. Bartlett is a bit surprised when she removes an overhead panel and technician Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson) falls out on her, injuring her arm.
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Beastly in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have a small obsession with the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, so any time a new retelling comes out, I must read it. This version written by Alex Flinn is both modernized and aimed at the Young Adult genre. I was curious to see how closely it would parallel the original fairy tale and still feel like an original story, and I think that it succeeded fairly well. There were parts that felt cliche, and it certainly verged into the realm of fantasy with the presence of the witch, but not so much that I was bothered by these elements. Plus, I liked the ways that the author diverged from the original tale and added new elements, such as the continuing involvement of the witch and the character of Kyle's father.
The plot wraps around the character of Kyle Kingsbury, who becomes the Beast. The book mainly felt like a character study as he progressed from a conceited, self-involved boy to a self-sacrificing, repentant young man. This is certainly a change from most retellings of this tale, since it is usually from the viewpoint of the character who plays the role of "Beauty." Many of the side characters were also just as fascinating, such as the blind tutor who comes to live with Kyle. I love the fascination that Kyle adopted for roses and the details of their care that were included in the book, it gave the book more depth. Probably the most exciting part of the book was his frantic race through New York City and the way that he handled the reactions that he created during this foray.
I know that this book was turned into a movie recently. I have not seen it as of yet, other than the previews, but I do look forward to it. But I already know of one major difference that the movie has from the book, and that is Kyle's beastly appearance is changed to resemble extravagant and disfiguring tattoos. I'll reserve opinion on this until after I've seen the movie.
The plot wraps around the character of Kyle Kingsbury, who becomes the Beast. The book mainly felt like a character study as he progressed from a conceited, self-involved boy to a self-sacrificing, repentant young man. This is certainly a change from most retellings of this tale, since it is usually from the viewpoint of the character who plays the role of "Beauty." Many of the side characters were also just as fascinating, such as the blind tutor who comes to live with Kyle. I love the fascination that Kyle adopted for roses and the details of their care that were included in the book, it gave the book more depth. Probably the most exciting part of the book was his frantic race through New York City and the way that he handled the reactions that he created during this foray.
I know that this book was turned into a movie recently. I have not seen it as of yet, other than the previews, but I do look forward to it. But I already know of one major difference that the movie has from the book, and that is Kyle's beastly appearance is changed to resemble extravagant and disfiguring tattoos. I'll reserve opinion on this until after I've seen the movie.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated What They Had (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What They Had is what I wanted from The Leisure Seeker, it ends up being a touching look at how Alzheimer's can affect the family unit. That being said, it is still just an average family drama that has a great cast.
All four of our leads bring something special to this film, for me though, Robert Forster was far and away the best of them. His progression throughout the film makes for such a powerful moment at the end when he finally sees the reality of his situation.
There's no denying that if you take out these big name actors you've just got another Lifetime movie. It needed some more punch in the other areas to bring it up, but I honestly don't know how it could have done that. It is what it is, there isn't a lot to play with apart from a more dramatic storyline.
The main story does flow well but the side stories are rather forgettable. When we get to the end and they're all neatly tied up I wasn't overly bothered. Even with these great actors in all of the scenes nothing was particularly tugging at my heartstrings.
Blythe Danner really came into her own towards the end of What They Had. The sequence of events that takes place brought more than the odd tear to my eye. There's some beautiful logic from Ruth and if I'd been in her daughter's position in that moment I would have been snotty crying.
We also need to acknowledge the elephant (or in this case, turkey) in the room. We've had Ruth's emotional scenes, we get the last bit of the story sewn up in possibly an overly sweet scenario and then... a turkey... literally. I honestly didn't get it.
Sadly, although I enjoy it and I wasn't bored I think this is going to quickly be cast into the "oh yeah, I remember that film" pile.
What you should do
If you enjoy family dramas then this is one of the better ones recently and is certainly worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I quite liked the look of Nick's bar, I wouldn't mind getting my own one... it would be movie-themed of course.
All four of our leads bring something special to this film, for me though, Robert Forster was far and away the best of them. His progression throughout the film makes for such a powerful moment at the end when he finally sees the reality of his situation.
There's no denying that if you take out these big name actors you've just got another Lifetime movie. It needed some more punch in the other areas to bring it up, but I honestly don't know how it could have done that. It is what it is, there isn't a lot to play with apart from a more dramatic storyline.
The main story does flow well but the side stories are rather forgettable. When we get to the end and they're all neatly tied up I wasn't overly bothered. Even with these great actors in all of the scenes nothing was particularly tugging at my heartstrings.
Blythe Danner really came into her own towards the end of What They Had. The sequence of events that takes place brought more than the odd tear to my eye. There's some beautiful logic from Ruth and if I'd been in her daughter's position in that moment I would have been snotty crying.
We also need to acknowledge the elephant (or in this case, turkey) in the room. We've had Ruth's emotional scenes, we get the last bit of the story sewn up in possibly an overly sweet scenario and then... a turkey... literally. I honestly didn't get it.
Sadly, although I enjoy it and I wasn't bored I think this is going to quickly be cast into the "oh yeah, I remember that film" pile.
What you should do
If you enjoy family dramas then this is one of the better ones recently and is certainly worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I quite liked the look of Nick's bar, I wouldn't mind getting my own one... it would be movie-themed of course.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Iron Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off, and manages to continue the enjoyment without losing too much steam in the process. Jon Favreau has kept the exciting action, lost a bit of character development, but added more of a comic-book dimension to the film series.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Room in Books
May 10, 2018
Jack is five years old and to him Room is his entire world. He lives in Room with his Ma, Joy, and calls each inanimate object by it's name, toilet, sink, table, plant, etc. What Jack doesn't know is that his Ma was kidnapped 7 years ago and was brought to Room and hasn't left since. No one knows she is there and no one knows Jack exists. When Joy decides it's time to make a great escape, she has to tell Jack about the outside world. Up until now, he has thought everything outside of Room was only on TV. He doesn't know that there are really other people and a great big world outside the walls of Room. Will the plan Joy has mapped out work? How will their lives change if they are able to get away? What happens if they don't?
Room has been on my TBR for a very long time. I have no idea why I didn't read it sooner, I loved it. The book made me laugh and cry. I also watched the movie, which as usual was not as good as the book, but still it was a good movie.
I love that the book was told from Jack's perspective. Getting to see him learn the world for the first time is interesting and exciting. You feel for his mother and all that she has to endure just to keep Jack safe. They look forward to "Sunday Treat" from Old Nick, their capture, they move all the furniture around in the house to run track and stay healthy. Even though the TV is the only connection they have to the outside world, she still limits Jack's time on it so it won't rot his brain.
If you haven't read Room, I suggest you pick up a copy right away. Read the book and then see the movie. The only other book I have read by Emma Donoghue is [bc:Frog Music|18295858|Frog Music|Emma Donoghue|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1393227215s/18295858.jpg|25778638]
Room has been on my TBR for a very long time. I have no idea why I didn't read it sooner, I loved it. The book made me laugh and cry. I also watched the movie, which as usual was not as good as the book, but still it was a good movie.
I love that the book was told from Jack's perspective. Getting to see him learn the world for the first time is interesting and exciting. You feel for his mother and all that she has to endure just to keep Jack safe. They look forward to "Sunday Treat" from Old Nick, their capture, they move all the furniture around in the house to run track and stay healthy. Even though the TV is the only connection they have to the outside world, she still limits Jack's time on it so it won't rot his brain.
If you haven't read Room, I suggest you pick up a copy right away. Read the book and then see the movie. The only other book I have read by Emma Donoghue is [bc:Frog Music|18295858|Frog Music|Emma Donoghue|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1393227215s/18295858.jpg|25778638]