Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Touched Me In The End
The new Apple TV+ original film THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER is being advertised as kind of a “wacky buddy comedy” with a bunch of New York slackers looking for beer in Viet Nam.
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Maze Runner in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are murderous creatures in the maze, but the maze is your only way home.
Although there is power in numbers, no one in the Glade knows how they got there or why they're there. Everyone has a job, either making food or running the maze, hoping to find an exit, but they've been at it for two years.
Then there's the 'changing.' Anyone who has seen the creatures in the maze knows they can be stung instead of killed (which one is worse is hard to tell), it brings back unwanted memories of their life before the maze. All can agree, that have been stung, it's better to live with the Maze than with what's outside in the world.
In 'The Maze Runner,' James Dashner writes an action filled mystery that keeps the readers on their toes. Although the film is already out and has been viewed by millions, the book is well worth a read just because the movie kept out crucial parts that happened in the book!
The reader gets to follow Thomas from the very moment he enters the Glade; everything is new for him and for us. Thomas quickly wants to be a Runner (someone who runs the maze every day, from sun up to sun down), but the leaders of the Glade think he's a greenie (new person in the Glade) that thinks he's too good for hard labor: "Listen, trust me on this, Tommy. Start stompin' around this place yappin' about how you're too good to work like a peasant, how you're all nice and ready to be a Runner - you'll make plenty of enemies. Drop it for now." Thomas' fast friend, Newt, gives him sound advice.
Later in the book, Thomas ends up becoming a Runner after saving the leader of the Glade from the maze and its creatures. The maze's openings close at sundown every night, which means if you get caught in the maze afterwards, you are stuck out there until sun rise, and this is exactly what happened with leader, Alby and lead Runner, Minho.
As the walls were closing, Thomas and Newt saw the forms of Alby and Minho appear,but they both knew they wouldn't make it in time - Thomas runs inside just as the walls shut behind him. "Greenie,' Minho said, 'if you think that was brave comin' out here, listen up. You're the shuckiest shuck-faced shuck there ever was. You're as good as dead, just like us." Thomas also broke the biggest rule of the Glade : DO NOT ENTER THE MAZE IF YOU'RE NOT A RUNNER.
This entire night is the most important part of the book.
All of the characters in Dashner's first book of the series are interesting and diverse, even down to Newt's accent. My biggest complaint of this book was the author's over use of the words meters and centimeters; there are plenty of words out there that are used to describe how big or how small something is,but Dashner decided to only use those two words repeatedly. Also, all of the Gladers use code words for curse words, but this is never explained why they do this (such as shuck face instead of fuck face).
Then there's the telepathy that Thomas has with Teresa (the only girl to ever show up at the Glade) - this may be explained later on in the other books,but having only read this one so far - this is never explained. They use this ability quite a bit after Teresa wakes up from her 'coma,' that it almost seems like an afterthought that was just added to make the story more interesting.
I also don't have patience for characters that make a decision then suddenly change their mind the very next page. At one point, when Thomas and Teresa learn that there is a code for the maze, they agree that they shouldn't tell anyone about it,yet,suddenly, like right after Thomas states he doesn't need to tell anyone, he's thinking he MUST tell someone about the code.
But,the entire book isn't like this. Dashner is very fluid in his writing,and keeps the reader interested with really no downtime in between chapters - there just always seems to be something happening or going wrong!
Also, Dashner made Thomas into an emotional character, something that is odd in writing for a male character. He isn't afraid to show his emotions, and this is something that is very welcomed and written quite well throughout the book.
Yet, the other characters aren't written as well as our main character. A majority of the characters just seem angry all the time, walking around with a chip on their shoulder. Any other character that is mentioned, such as Zart, is a blank slate except for the slight description of what they look like.
The Glade and the maze are wonderfully described that even a light reader can imagine it. The creatures inside seem to take the cake when it comes to description, seeming that Dashner took more time out to describe these nightmarish beings.
I think the fact that the movie left out important parts of the book did a dishonor to Dashner's work. The book's version of events may not make more sense than the film's, but it made for a more interesting story. I do like the movies, but you MUST read the book if you like them. You missed out on quite a few things.
I certainly recommend this book. Most people don't categorize 'The Maze Runner' as a horror- genre book,but I ask you: if you woke up in an isolated community, where you can only get out if you solve the maze, which is covered in creatures that want to hunt you down and kill you, wouldn't you consider that a horrific problem?
Although there is power in numbers, no one in the Glade knows how they got there or why they're there. Everyone has a job, either making food or running the maze, hoping to find an exit, but they've been at it for two years.
Then there's the 'changing.' Anyone who has seen the creatures in the maze knows they can be stung instead of killed (which one is worse is hard to tell), it brings back unwanted memories of their life before the maze. All can agree, that have been stung, it's better to live with the Maze than with what's outside in the world.
In 'The Maze Runner,' James Dashner writes an action filled mystery that keeps the readers on their toes. Although the film is already out and has been viewed by millions, the book is well worth a read just because the movie kept out crucial parts that happened in the book!
The reader gets to follow Thomas from the very moment he enters the Glade; everything is new for him and for us. Thomas quickly wants to be a Runner (someone who runs the maze every day, from sun up to sun down), but the leaders of the Glade think he's a greenie (new person in the Glade) that thinks he's too good for hard labor: "Listen, trust me on this, Tommy. Start stompin' around this place yappin' about how you're too good to work like a peasant, how you're all nice and ready to be a Runner - you'll make plenty of enemies. Drop it for now." Thomas' fast friend, Newt, gives him sound advice.
Later in the book, Thomas ends up becoming a Runner after saving the leader of the Glade from the maze and its creatures. The maze's openings close at sundown every night, which means if you get caught in the maze afterwards, you are stuck out there until sun rise, and this is exactly what happened with leader, Alby and lead Runner, Minho.
As the walls were closing, Thomas and Newt saw the forms of Alby and Minho appear,but they both knew they wouldn't make it in time - Thomas runs inside just as the walls shut behind him. "Greenie,' Minho said, 'if you think that was brave comin' out here, listen up. You're the shuckiest shuck-faced shuck there ever was. You're as good as dead, just like us." Thomas also broke the biggest rule of the Glade : DO NOT ENTER THE MAZE IF YOU'RE NOT A RUNNER.
This entire night is the most important part of the book.
All of the characters in Dashner's first book of the series are interesting and diverse, even down to Newt's accent. My biggest complaint of this book was the author's over use of the words meters and centimeters; there are plenty of words out there that are used to describe how big or how small something is,but Dashner decided to only use those two words repeatedly. Also, all of the Gladers use code words for curse words, but this is never explained why they do this (such as shuck face instead of fuck face).
Then there's the telepathy that Thomas has with Teresa (the only girl to ever show up at the Glade) - this may be explained later on in the other books,but having only read this one so far - this is never explained. They use this ability quite a bit after Teresa wakes up from her 'coma,' that it almost seems like an afterthought that was just added to make the story more interesting.
I also don't have patience for characters that make a decision then suddenly change their mind the very next page. At one point, when Thomas and Teresa learn that there is a code for the maze, they agree that they shouldn't tell anyone about it,yet,suddenly, like right after Thomas states he doesn't need to tell anyone, he's thinking he MUST tell someone about the code.
But,the entire book isn't like this. Dashner is very fluid in his writing,and keeps the reader interested with really no downtime in between chapters - there just always seems to be something happening or going wrong!
Also, Dashner made Thomas into an emotional character, something that is odd in writing for a male character. He isn't afraid to show his emotions, and this is something that is very welcomed and written quite well throughout the book.
Yet, the other characters aren't written as well as our main character. A majority of the characters just seem angry all the time, walking around with a chip on their shoulder. Any other character that is mentioned, such as Zart, is a blank slate except for the slight description of what they look like.
The Glade and the maze are wonderfully described that even a light reader can imagine it. The creatures inside seem to take the cake when it comes to description, seeming that Dashner took more time out to describe these nightmarish beings.
I think the fact that the movie left out important parts of the book did a dishonor to Dashner's work. The book's version of events may not make more sense than the film's, but it made for a more interesting story. I do like the movies, but you MUST read the book if you like them. You missed out on quite a few things.
I certainly recommend this book. Most people don't categorize 'The Maze Runner' as a horror- genre book,but I ask you: if you woke up in an isolated community, where you can only get out if you solve the maze, which is covered in creatures that want to hunt you down and kill you, wouldn't you consider that a horrific problem?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in Video Games
Jul 21, 2017
Poor Graphics (3 more)
Awkward Animation
Glitches Galore
Rushed Ending
Can He Swing From A Web? Yeah, But That’s About All He Can Do…
You may be thinking Dan, why the hell are you reviewing a low rated movie tie in game that came out three years ago? Well, I would say, that is a very valid question. I am reviewing this game because I actually believe it is one of the most relevant games I’ve played so far this year in terms of the wider gaming landscape, so yeah you have me rumbled, this won’t be so much a review of The Amazing Spiderman 2 for PS4 as it will be a commentary on bad games in general and their place in the modern gaming landscape.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
I had just come off of finally getting around to playing Until Dawn at the start of January. A well made, well written, well acted, well executed teen horror story that had atmosphere and intrigue in spades. I then went on to play a game that I thought was mediocre by comparison, DMC Definitive Edition. When playing through the story I was so underwhelmed and disappointed in what they had turned this once great franchise into, an angsty, melodramatic, arcade slash ‘em up with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddies swimming pool. I thought what a waste of cash and time. What a piece of garbage. Oh how naive I was, I had no idea how much worse it could get. After beating DMC and the attached story DLC that came with the Definitive Edition, I popped out the game and slid in The Amazing Spiderman 2. The first thing that I noticed was that the game graphically is at the same level if not worse than the first Amazing Spiderman game on PS3, but I thought hey, games with under par graphics can still be fun, UI’s and poly counts aren’t everything so I began working my way through the main story. Let’s start with the only positive that this game has going for it, the web slinging. Traversal feels and looks great in the game, zipping around NYC is a treat and when everything works correctly, you can pull off some truly spectacular acrobatics while shooting around in mid air. The shoulder buttons on the controller are matched to Spidey’s arms, left trigger for left swing, right trigger for right swing, and unlike the last game, in this one the web shooters have to be aimed at a building in order to perform a successful swing. The important phrase here, is ‘when it works.’ There were several times when I would be right next to a building and press the trigger to swing, only to hear Spidey say, ‘Hey, this just in, web slingers need something to stick to.’ No shit Spidey, that’s why I’m pressing the trigger on the side where the huge fucking skyscraper is. Also, there would be times when I had a decent amount of momentum going, swing left, right, left, right consecutively and as I pressed the left trigger again to attach to the building on my left, for some odd reason, Spidey would fire his right hand web shooter, attaching to a distant building on the right, turning me away from the direction I was swinging and totally ruining my momentum, this was particularly frustrating during boss fights and chase sequences or when swinging against the clock. Overall though traversal is fun, okay now that the positive is out of the way, let’s rip this thing apart. Animations are stiff, glitches are common and every cutscene in the game ends abruptly with an awkward animation that resembles the look of a news anchor when they run out of words to read off the teleprompter, but the camera is still rolling. Why they decided to add a dialogue system, I have no idea, it is so unnecessary and out of place and has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game’s narrative, it’s simply there for the sake of having a dialogue option. The plot is fairly standard, but is bearable for the first two thirds of the game, however the point that the publishers told the development team to get a move on and meet the deadline to coincide with the release of the movie becomes instantly clear. The last 5 or so chapters in the game are so rushed it’s like going through a checklist. The first bossfight in the last third of the game is pretty mundane, but at least there is an attempt at a build up to it. However after that fight you are teleported to the top of a skyscraper to battle Electro in a boss fight with the least build up ever. So you do that and then you are corrected, this next boss fight with the Green Goblin is the least build up to a boss fight ever. You don’t see the transformation of either Electro or the Goblin and honestly, if I hadn’t seen the movie that goes with this game, I would not have had a clue about what was going on. Then it’s as if the game remembers that they made a half arsed attempt at introducing Carnage away back at the beginning of the story and so they throw in another out of the blue boss fight to end the game. Wow, this lack of story build up and context wouldn’t have been acceptable in a PS1 game, it certainly isn’t acceptable here. Also the game again (just like the first one,) tries to copy the Arkham games in terms of the stealth and combat systems and miserably fails.
In my opinion, games like this; lazy, half arsed cash grabs, just aren’t acceptable in today’s modern landscape of video games. I thought DMC was a slog, but after playing this piece of dogshit, DMC is game of the year material. So please, please stop. Until you have a dedicated team who genuinely want to make a good game for fans of a franchise, don’t bother. Signed by everyone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Unfriended: Dark Web (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
It seems no matter where you look these days, there’s some reference to the “Dark Web”. These references range from credit card or Social Security numbers being traded to all sorts of heinous acts that would not only be frowned upon but outright illegal in most countries. The Dark Web and all the nefarious secrets it holds sets the stage for the stand-alone sequel to Blumhouse Productions original film Unfriended.
Unfriended: Dark Web stars Colin Woodell as Matias, a man in his early twenties who is hard at work on an App that he hopes will allow him to better communicate with his deaf girlfriend Amaya (Stephanie Nogueras). His dedication to the app and his insistence on utilizing technology versus simply learning sign language has driven a wedge in their relationship and that lack of ability to communicate plays an important role in the film.
On what seems to be a typical game night of Cards Against Humanity (played on Skype because it’s too difficult for the gang to meet in person), Matias reveals that he has purchased a “new” laptop off Craigslist. While it is clearer and much faster than his previous computer, it regularly hangs and crashes while they are trying to play the game. While investigating the cause of the hang-ups, Matias uncovers a treasure trove of films that are hidden on the laptop. His curiosity gets the best of him and he begins to watch the films only to realize that he has fallen into a den of horror where people pay a lot of money to kill people off in very specific ways. Unfortunately, not only is he sharing what he has discovered with all his friends, but there are also other participants watching his every move.
Unfriended: Dark Web uses much of the same camera tricks that the original used. The entire movie is shot from the perspective of the audience watching the events unfold on the screen as if each were on their own laptop. The action takes place over Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Google and the fact that most people are familiar with these tools helps the audience feel like they are part of the events even more. By the end of the movie it is clear that you are as much of a participant in the horror that unfolds as the individuals participating via the Dark Web. I enjoyed the use of the various technologies to draw the viewer in as much as I did in the original Unfriended. It’s a very interesting and unique way to tell a story.
Unfriended: Dark Web certainly kept my interest throughout the film. I felt it took a little while to find it’s footing, but like a roller coaster with an extremely high climb, once you get over the hump it’s an exhilarating and fulfilling ride. While the technology used may be a bit exaggerated, it is realistic enough to give you that uneasy feeling that this could really happen. While it would take the uttermost bad luck for the events to happen in the perfect way as they do in the film, I enjoyed watching it all unfold. Even though I am still more afraid of my credit card information being sold on the Dark Web than the events of Unfriended happening, I would recommend this film to anyone who’s a fan of the genre.
What I liked: Interesting premise, Unique perspective
What I liked less: Characters were a bit too stereotypical, Really no connection to the first film other than the name
Unfriended: Dark Web stars Colin Woodell as Matias, a man in his early twenties who is hard at work on an App that he hopes will allow him to better communicate with his deaf girlfriend Amaya (Stephanie Nogueras). His dedication to the app and his insistence on utilizing technology versus simply learning sign language has driven a wedge in their relationship and that lack of ability to communicate plays an important role in the film.
On what seems to be a typical game night of Cards Against Humanity (played on Skype because it’s too difficult for the gang to meet in person), Matias reveals that he has purchased a “new” laptop off Craigslist. While it is clearer and much faster than his previous computer, it regularly hangs and crashes while they are trying to play the game. While investigating the cause of the hang-ups, Matias uncovers a treasure trove of films that are hidden on the laptop. His curiosity gets the best of him and he begins to watch the films only to realize that he has fallen into a den of horror where people pay a lot of money to kill people off in very specific ways. Unfortunately, not only is he sharing what he has discovered with all his friends, but there are also other participants watching his every move.
Unfriended: Dark Web uses much of the same camera tricks that the original used. The entire movie is shot from the perspective of the audience watching the events unfold on the screen as if each were on their own laptop. The action takes place over Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Google and the fact that most people are familiar with these tools helps the audience feel like they are part of the events even more. By the end of the movie it is clear that you are as much of a participant in the horror that unfolds as the individuals participating via the Dark Web. I enjoyed the use of the various technologies to draw the viewer in as much as I did in the original Unfriended. It’s a very interesting and unique way to tell a story.
Unfriended: Dark Web certainly kept my interest throughout the film. I felt it took a little while to find it’s footing, but like a roller coaster with an extremely high climb, once you get over the hump it’s an exhilarating and fulfilling ride. While the technology used may be a bit exaggerated, it is realistic enough to give you that uneasy feeling that this could really happen. While it would take the uttermost bad luck for the events to happen in the perfect way as they do in the film, I enjoyed watching it all unfold. Even though I am still more afraid of my credit card information being sold on the Dark Web than the events of Unfriended happening, I would recommend this film to anyone who’s a fan of the genre.
What I liked: Interesting premise, Unique perspective
What I liked less: Characters were a bit too stereotypical, Really no connection to the first film other than the name
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pitch Perfect (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I have to admit, I am a sucker for movies with singing and dancing. And when there’s competition involved, even better! When I saw the trailer for Pitch Perfect, my first thought was it looked like “Bring It On” but for a capella groups. My second thought was, “Where do I line up?”
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Memento (2000) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
One of my favourite films
Film #5 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Memento
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
The much anticipated new release, I was amazed that I managed to avoid seeing the trailer or spoilers (I even only vaguely saw the poster), and after seeing the film... I'm not sure that was entirely sensible, I should probably have knocked down my anticipation a bit by looking at all of it.
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Sunshine Sisters in Books
Jan 21, 2018
Good beach read
Ronni Sunshine has summoned her daughters home. The aging actress is ill, and she wants her daughters by her side. This, however, will be easier said than done, as her three children--Nell, Meredith, and Lizzy--are estranged, both from each other and their mother: the result of a traumatic childhood. Even Ronni will now readily admit she focused on her acting career and beauty rather than her daughters. Her constant belittlement and pressure on the girls made them turn on each other as well. Nell lives the closest to her mother, on a nearby farm, and her son River is in grad school. Middle child Meredith spent her childhood struggling with her weight, thanks to endless biting comments from Ronni; she fled to England and is now engaged. Youngest Lizzie escaped most of her mother's wrath and appears to be the "golden child": she's a successful chef and celebrity, with a TV show and line of related products, but her marriage and personal life aren't all that they seem. Frustrated by their mother's long history of hypochondria, the girls reluctantly return home, excepting to find her fine. However, it seems this time Ronni may be telling the truth: she's really sick. Can the Sunshine sisters set aside their differences? And can they ever forgive their mother?
In some ways, I'm not sure why I keep giving Jane Green books a chance. I liked Summer Secrets well-enough, but was really let down by Saving Grace and Falling. I was intrigued that in her acknowledgements, Green mentions that this is the first book in while where she's felt like herself. I went in hoping that this was true, but still wary, and truthfully, this wariness may have clouded some of my thoughts and feelings about the book.
Overall, this is a summery read, though it does deal with some serious subject matter. If you're looking for a book that will surprise you, this isn't it. Most of these plot points I saw coming from a few miles away; I predicted the majority of the twists and turns before they happened. And, truly, I think the ending is a foregone conclusion. Green relies a bit to heavily on some tropes, as well. Serious older sister? Check. Insecure middle sister? Check. Flighty younger sister? She's here, too, don't worry.
Still, this was a fun book--despite the dark topic at its core--and I found myself compelled to read through the second half in nearly one sitting. Despite some of the transparency of the characters, I was oddly invested in their lives. The novel starts out with a brief glimpse of Ronni summoning her daughters home, then goes back in the past, allowing us to learn about the Sunshine family via various snippets from the sisters at different points in time. In this way, we sort of catch up with the family fast-forward style--it's like a cheat sheet of sorts. It also allows us to get to know each sister a bit better and explore their relationship with their mother (and other sisters). It's easy to see how much influence Ronni had on their lives and how she shaped them into the women they are today.
The girls can certainly be frustrating at times. Poor, needy Meredith drove me nearly mad, with her insecurities and inability to stand up for herself. There's also a point in the book where Meredith magically cleans up after a party (everything is fixed) and later loses a large amount of weight (everything is fixed, again!). I would have liked to have seen a little more plot realism. It was also hard to see how anyone could be quite as big of a doormat as Meredith, even with her mother's influence. And, truly, Ronni is pretty bad. It's an interesting technique--learning how terrible of a mother she is after we're told in the beginning of the novel that she's sick. But, in this way, we're allowed to see how the sisters were alienated by their poor upbringing and how everyone has reached the point we are at today.
Eventually, we reach the present day, with the girls learning about their mother's illness and coming to grips with reality. And, Ronni, of course, must grapple with the kind of mother she was to her children. She's a surprisingly compelling character considering how awful she was to her children, so that's a testament to Green's characterization. To me, the novel picked up a bit more in the present day time period. There were still some silly, unbelievable moments, but I truly did find myself invested in Meredith, Nell, and Lizzy (and Ronni).
The book does wrap things up too easily, as I stated. It's often quite trite and cliche, so you have to go in prepared. Think Lifetime movie, wrapped up in a bow. Still, it's fun at times and certainly a quick read. Well-suited for the beach or a vacation.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!).
In some ways, I'm not sure why I keep giving Jane Green books a chance. I liked Summer Secrets well-enough, but was really let down by Saving Grace and Falling. I was intrigued that in her acknowledgements, Green mentions that this is the first book in while where she's felt like herself. I went in hoping that this was true, but still wary, and truthfully, this wariness may have clouded some of my thoughts and feelings about the book.
Overall, this is a summery read, though it does deal with some serious subject matter. If you're looking for a book that will surprise you, this isn't it. Most of these plot points I saw coming from a few miles away; I predicted the majority of the twists and turns before they happened. And, truly, I think the ending is a foregone conclusion. Green relies a bit to heavily on some tropes, as well. Serious older sister? Check. Insecure middle sister? Check. Flighty younger sister? She's here, too, don't worry.
Still, this was a fun book--despite the dark topic at its core--and I found myself compelled to read through the second half in nearly one sitting. Despite some of the transparency of the characters, I was oddly invested in their lives. The novel starts out with a brief glimpse of Ronni summoning her daughters home, then goes back in the past, allowing us to learn about the Sunshine family via various snippets from the sisters at different points in time. In this way, we sort of catch up with the family fast-forward style--it's like a cheat sheet of sorts. It also allows us to get to know each sister a bit better and explore their relationship with their mother (and other sisters). It's easy to see how much influence Ronni had on their lives and how she shaped them into the women they are today.
The girls can certainly be frustrating at times. Poor, needy Meredith drove me nearly mad, with her insecurities and inability to stand up for herself. There's also a point in the book where Meredith magically cleans up after a party (everything is fixed) and later loses a large amount of weight (everything is fixed, again!). I would have liked to have seen a little more plot realism. It was also hard to see how anyone could be quite as big of a doormat as Meredith, even with her mother's influence. And, truly, Ronni is pretty bad. It's an interesting technique--learning how terrible of a mother she is after we're told in the beginning of the novel that she's sick. But, in this way, we're allowed to see how the sisters were alienated by their poor upbringing and how everyone has reached the point we are at today.
Eventually, we reach the present day, with the girls learning about their mother's illness and coming to grips with reality. And, Ronni, of course, must grapple with the kind of mother she was to her children. She's a surprisingly compelling character considering how awful she was to her children, so that's a testament to Green's characterization. To me, the novel picked up a bit more in the present day time period. There were still some silly, unbelievable moments, but I truly did find myself invested in Meredith, Nell, and Lizzy (and Ronni).
The book does wrap things up too easily, as I stated. It's often quite trite and cliche, so you have to go in prepared. Think Lifetime movie, wrapped up in a bow. Still, it's fun at times and certainly a quick read. Well-suited for the beach or a vacation.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.