Search
Search results
The Ad Makers: How the Best TV Commercials are Produced
Book
The "Ad Makers" looks at the form where commerce and creativity collide most dramatically: the TV...
Ultimate Exposure: All You Need to Know to Take Perfect Photos with Any Camera
Book
You don't need a book to take good photos any more; most (but not all) of the time your camera, or...
Better than Suicide Squad
Did you catch the 2016 DCEU disappointment SUICIDE SQUAD with Will Smith as Deadshot and Jared Leto as the Joker? Many people (myself included) thought that that film was "just fine, nothing special" but were impressed with the way Margot Robbie handled the Harley Quinn character and wished for a standalone film that featured the Harley Quinn character.
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Final Girls in Books
Sep 24, 2020
More reviews on https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
I donāt know about you, but I get this feeling after reading a great book, where I need to breathe out and have some free time before I pick up another book. I just need some time to digest what I just read, the same feeling I had after reading Final Girls. It is one of my favourite books this year and I think everybody should read it.
I was hooked from the first pages of this book, as it starts of Quincyās escape from Pine Cottage. The main characters in this book were Quincy and Samantha (Sam). Two strong survivors of massive slaughter, but there is one small problem, Quincy canāt remember what happened that night.
All the characters in this book are really mysterious and very interesting. Most of the story was told from Quincyās perspective, which made other characters more intriguing, because the only way to find out about them was through Quincyās story. I needed to find out more about other characters, thatās why the pages just flew while looking for more information about them. Even though, for me, it was enough to hear the story from Quincyās point of view, I wouldāve loved to read the thoughts of other characters as well, at least at the end of the book.
The plot of this book was amazing to me. You cannot trust what you read, because as soon as you will start to believe in something, Author changes the flow of story, throwing in twist after twist and story changing turns, making this book very compelling and an absolute page turner. The narrative was changing between present and past, telling the true story of Quincyās survival, and what happened that night in Pine Cottage. I really loved the topics author was discussing in this book, such as: pressure you get from media after surviving something horrible; mental illnesses and lifelong healing, where you can slip at any time; difficult family relationships.
The writing style of this novel was very smart, finishing every chapter with a cliff hanger, building curiosity and suspense, chapter after chapter. Add to this lovely and short chapters and a language, which was easy and pleasurable to read. The ending of the book was very nicely thought through and concluded the story really well for me. The characters and story are so awesome, that in the hands of skilled producer it could be an awesome film, and I really hope that this book will be transformed into one. It deserves it! So, to conclude, this book has a lot of interesting action going on, continuously playing with your mind and not letting you to believe in anything, throwing in twists and turns, making it a very fast paced, compelling page turner, and I think it is an ABSOLUTE MUST READ this year.
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
I donāt know about you, but I get this feeling after reading a great book, where I need to breathe out and have some free time before I pick up another book. I just need some time to digest what I just read, the same feeling I had after reading Final Girls. It is one of my favourite books this year and I think everybody should read it.
I was hooked from the first pages of this book, as it starts of Quincyās escape from Pine Cottage. The main characters in this book were Quincy and Samantha (Sam). Two strong survivors of massive slaughter, but there is one small problem, Quincy canāt remember what happened that night.
All the characters in this book are really mysterious and very interesting. Most of the story was told from Quincyās perspective, which made other characters more intriguing, because the only way to find out about them was through Quincyās story. I needed to find out more about other characters, thatās why the pages just flew while looking for more information about them. Even though, for me, it was enough to hear the story from Quincyās point of view, I wouldāve loved to read the thoughts of other characters as well, at least at the end of the book.
The plot of this book was amazing to me. You cannot trust what you read, because as soon as you will start to believe in something, Author changes the flow of story, throwing in twist after twist and story changing turns, making this book very compelling and an absolute page turner. The narrative was changing between present and past, telling the true story of Quincyās survival, and what happened that night in Pine Cottage. I really loved the topics author was discussing in this book, such as: pressure you get from media after surviving something horrible; mental illnesses and lifelong healing, where you can slip at any time; difficult family relationships.
The writing style of this novel was very smart, finishing every chapter with a cliff hanger, building curiosity and suspense, chapter after chapter. Add to this lovely and short chapters and a language, which was easy and pleasurable to read. The ending of the book was very nicely thought through and concluded the story really well for me. The characters and story are so awesome, that in the hands of skilled producer it could be an awesome film, and I really hope that this book will be transformed into one. It deserves it! So, to conclude, this book has a lot of interesting action going on, continuously playing with your mind and not letting you to believe in anything, throwing in twists and turns, making it a very fast paced, compelling page turner, and I think it is an ABSOLUTE MUST READ this year.
Was given this book by publisher and NetGalley for honest review.
JT (287 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Itās hard to do something different with romance these days. Girl meets boy or vice versa. Boy falls in love with girl or vice versa. So every now and then it needs to do something a little different in order to give it a unique twist.
Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore had Ghost, Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, The Lake House so The Time Travellerās Wife had to go one step further. Special collections librarian Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a genetic anomaly that allows him to time travel; however, he is not able to control the moment or the destiny of his voyages.
The film is based on the novel by Audrey Niffenegger and not having read the book itās hard to say whether or not the film did it justice? That said, itās elegantly shot and Bana and fellow on screen love interest Clare (Rachel McAdams) seem perfectly suited to their roles.
Bana is a likeable actor and has been portrayed in some pretty powerful films including Chopper, Black Hawk Down and Munich
A man who only has the love for one woman but is unable to control his ability in disappearing, he is desperate to find a cure and wonāt let anything stand in his way. The time travelling plot is a little stupid. Henry is unable to control when he goes but always seems to pop up in similar places both in the past and the future, and always naked?
In the beginning he visits his wife Clare on more than one occasion as a child and as she grows older. Certainly itās a better directed film than the Butterfly Effect in which Ashton Kutcher time travelled more often than a gas meter reader pops into your house.
The Time Travellerās Wife is a film with nagging questions and at times head scratching conclusions but this is a love story of beauty, and for that itās worth a watch.
Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore had Ghost, Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, The Lake House so The Time Travellerās Wife had to go one step further. Special collections librarian Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a genetic anomaly that allows him to time travel; however, he is not able to control the moment or the destiny of his voyages.
The film is based on the novel by Audrey Niffenegger and not having read the book itās hard to say whether or not the film did it justice? That said, itās elegantly shot and Bana and fellow on screen love interest Clare (Rachel McAdams) seem perfectly suited to their roles.
Bana is a likeable actor and has been portrayed in some pretty powerful films including Chopper, Black Hawk Down and Munich
A man who only has the love for one woman but is unable to control his ability in disappearing, he is desperate to find a cure and wonāt let anything stand in his way. The time travelling plot is a little stupid. Henry is unable to control when he goes but always seems to pop up in similar places both in the past and the future, and always naked?
In the beginning he visits his wife Clare on more than one occasion as a child and as she grows older. Certainly itās a better directed film than the Butterfly Effect in which Ashton Kutcher time travelled more often than a gas meter reader pops into your house.
The Time Travellerās Wife is a film with nagging questions and at times head scratching conclusions but this is a love story of beauty, and for that itās worth a watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named āGreyhoundā, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krauseās instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his āsteely resolveā in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most āhumanā decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanksā character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a ānitā in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of ācharacter building scenesā that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and itās mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUTā¦from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this filmās theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X resultsā¦but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named āGreyhoundā, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krauseās instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his āsteely resolveā in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most āhumanā decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanksā character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a ānitā in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of ācharacter building scenesā that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and itās mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUTā¦from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this filmās theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X resultsā¦but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fred (860 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
A nice change from the over-rated Marvel powerhouse
So when this came out, reviews were either positive or negative across the board. You can put me in the positive column. It's not great, but it's good. It's just so nice of a change from the Marvel "got to see them all, even though they're not as good as we say" universe. It's so good to see a comic book movie that's under 2 hours, that moves along at a good pace & is not in the least boring. Let's get the negatives out of the way. Sophie Tucker is a terrible actress. She's terrible as Jean Grey. And although I did find the movie to move along at a good pace, I found the story lacking. They did cram one of comic's greatest stories into a short (for a superhero) film. Aside from Tucker, the acting was very good in the film. And let's just say, the X-Men, along with Magneto's gang, kick some serious ass in one of the best scenes I've seen in a hero flick. Like I said, the film is good, not great. Is it enjoyable? Definitely. Would I watch it again, yes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Morning Glory (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019 (Updated Aug 8, 2019)
Suddenly fired from a job she worked incredibly hard at, Becky finds herself hitting the mean streets of New York to continue to pursue her dream of producing a television show. The odds are stacked against her when she finds herself producing a failing morning show with challenging anchors, a boss who doubts her skills, and a new romance threatening to distract her already splintered focus.
Diane Keaton brightens the screen looking great while completely selling her role as the eager morning television show anchorwomen, Colleen Peck. The unexpected Harrison Ford adds a rough edge as the once great journalist and now subpar anchorman, Mike Pomeroy. However, it is rising actress, Rachel Adams, as the determined Becky, who stole the show.
Morning Glory offers exactly the amount of oddness one might expect from a film with action star Harrison Ford as a news guy. Yet somehow the story is sweet and mildly uplifting and, on occasion, laugh out loud funny.
The plot is not brilliant, new, or even all that imaginative, still the film is unique. Morning Glory oddly brings to mind āLittle Black Bookā all be it in a much lighter and less romantically driven tone. In fact the romance element is so light in this film that it is much more likely to fall in the drama/comedy category, with romance taking a backseat to the real focus of the film: the challenges of work-obsessed Becky.
Mashed firmly between an decent episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show and the Dolly Parton classic ā9 to 5ā, Morning Glory is a one-of-a-kind take on a story that is increasingly all too familiar. Without the unnecessary bells and whistles so often thrown in to modern cinema, Morning Glory keeps the audience watching and sometimes even laughing.
Diane Keaton brightens the screen looking great while completely selling her role as the eager morning television show anchorwomen, Colleen Peck. The unexpected Harrison Ford adds a rough edge as the once great journalist and now subpar anchorman, Mike Pomeroy. However, it is rising actress, Rachel Adams, as the determined Becky, who stole the show.
Morning Glory offers exactly the amount of oddness one might expect from a film with action star Harrison Ford as a news guy. Yet somehow the story is sweet and mildly uplifting and, on occasion, laugh out loud funny.
The plot is not brilliant, new, or even all that imaginative, still the film is unique. Morning Glory oddly brings to mind āLittle Black Bookā all be it in a much lighter and less romantically driven tone. In fact the romance element is so light in this film that it is much more likely to fall in the drama/comedy category, with romance taking a backseat to the real focus of the film: the challenges of work-obsessed Becky.
Mashed firmly between an decent episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show and the Dolly Parton classic ā9 to 5ā, Morning Glory is a one-of-a-kind take on a story that is increasingly all too familiar. Without the unnecessary bells and whistles so often thrown in to modern cinema, Morning Glory keeps the audience watching and sometimes even laughing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Old Guard (2020) in Movies
Jul 22, 2020
Theron makes this film watchable
In this time, where new cinematic experiences are limited to home viewing, it is fun to take a break from watching (or re-watching) classic films to check out a new movie.
And this one, THE OLD GUARD, is a fun enough and well worth checking out.
Starring Charlize Theron and based on a limited-run comics series from 2017, THE OLD GUARD tells the tale of a group if immortals (beings who cannot die) who bond together to serve the greater good of humanity.
While the plot is rather "by-the-book": young, hip, ego-maniacal mega-industrialist uses nefarious methods to capture the immortals to use for his own (money making) purposes, the star power of Theron holds this piece together in interesting ways.
Make no mistake - this is Theron's film (as the oldest of the immortals) and she is terrific. She demands attention anytime she is on the screen and when she shares the scene with strong actors like Chewitel Ejiofor(12 YEARS A SLAVE) and young Kiki Lane (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK), it makes for an interesting film, indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of the Immortals (Luca Marinelli, Marwan Kenzari and - especially - Matthias Schoenaerts) are rather bland and the "big bad" (played by Dudley Dursley himself, Harry Melling) and his generic henchmen just aren't interesting enough.
The Direction, by Gina-Prince Bythewood, and the fight choreography is professional, but nothing special, which adds to the "meh" I was feeling whenever Theron was not on the screen.
But there is enough going right in this film that in this day where there is a dearth of new entertainment available, THE OLD GUARD fills the void quite well.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And this one, THE OLD GUARD, is a fun enough and well worth checking out.
Starring Charlize Theron and based on a limited-run comics series from 2017, THE OLD GUARD tells the tale of a group if immortals (beings who cannot die) who bond together to serve the greater good of humanity.
While the plot is rather "by-the-book": young, hip, ego-maniacal mega-industrialist uses nefarious methods to capture the immortals to use for his own (money making) purposes, the star power of Theron holds this piece together in interesting ways.
Make no mistake - this is Theron's film (as the oldest of the immortals) and she is terrific. She demands attention anytime she is on the screen and when she shares the scene with strong actors like Chewitel Ejiofor(12 YEARS A SLAVE) and young Kiki Lane (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK), it makes for an interesting film, indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of the Immortals (Luca Marinelli, Marwan Kenzari and - especially - Matthias Schoenaerts) are rather bland and the "big bad" (played by Dudley Dursley himself, Harry Melling) and his generic henchmen just aren't interesting enough.
The Direction, by Gina-Prince Bythewood, and the fight choreography is professional, but nothing special, which adds to the "meh" I was feeling whenever Theron was not on the screen.
But there is enough going right in this film that in this day where there is a dearth of new entertainment available, THE OLD GUARD fills the void quite well.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
A pleasant surprise
This was always going to be up against it, as Stephen King's book is an epic and there's no way the entire book can be put into 2 films. However as a part 1, this film actually does a pretty good job.
Yes there are things missing from the book, this isn't really a surprise. And they have changed some parts of the story too, and although I don't necessarily agree with these changes, the majority of them don't really have a detrimental effect to the story. And a lot of these changes still hint and nod to the book (e.g. Eddie's broken arm, "beep-beep Richie" etc). The kids themselves I mainly loved and they were well cast, the humour was great. Although I do think Beverly looked a little too old? I also liked some of the exposition and explanatory scenes which happened differently in the book, yet still worked in this.
Despite the old school type scares, I actually found myself quite scared and creeped out at times, which I wasn't expecting. My only issue is I didn't like Pennywise's front teeth, I found them really off putting and didn't look very good. And I think some of the CGI was a little over the top.
So all in, a surprisingly good adaptation. Actually can't wait to see the next chapter.
Yes there are things missing from the book, this isn't really a surprise. And they have changed some parts of the story too, and although I don't necessarily agree with these changes, the majority of them don't really have a detrimental effect to the story. And a lot of these changes still hint and nod to the book (e.g. Eddie's broken arm, "beep-beep Richie" etc). The kids themselves I mainly loved and they were well cast, the humour was great. Although I do think Beverly looked a little too old? I also liked some of the exposition and explanatory scenes which happened differently in the book, yet still worked in this.
Despite the old school type scares, I actually found myself quite scared and creeped out at times, which I wasn't expecting. My only issue is I didn't like Pennywise's front teeth, I found them really off putting and didn't look very good. And I think some of the CGI was a little over the top.
So all in, a surprisingly good adaptation. Actually can't wait to see the next chapter.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) Feb 13, 2020
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) Feb 14, 2020