Search
Search results
Me Before You
8.3
Rate It
Book
THE NEW YORK TIMES NUMBER 1 BESTSELLING NOVEL THAT IS LOVED AROUND THE WORLD, NOW A FILM STARRING...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Empathy, Inc (2018) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Joel was one of the top stockbrokers in his company until it turns out that he has been made the scapegoat for a deal which lost people millions, Joel needs to get back on his feet, build his client base once again, which sees him taking advantages of a new VR system that has come his way. He thinks this will put his life back together, though it soon only makes things more complicated, as he must learn the truth. Jessica is the wife of Joel, she has supported him through the struggles, while trying to make a name for herself as an actress, she does make the most logic when Joel learns the truth. Lester is the mastermind that has created the technology, he is somebody that is happy to be isolated from the main world. Nicolaus is the old friend to Joel that offers him a chance to invest in the company, he has a reputation for questionable deals, but Joel has no choice. He knows how to sweet talk a deal through, which makes him the man bringing the project money.
Performances – Zack Robidas is great in this leading role, he does show us just how his characters life can come crashing down around him, while trying to figure out make up for his mistakes. Outside of Zack, nobody gets that much time to shine, with Kathy Searle and Jay Klaitz doing everything you imagine their characters need to, without being challenged, while Eric Berryman is as smooth as he needs to be throughout the film.
Story – The story here follows an investor that loses his job and needs to rebuild his career, which sees him taking a chance on a new start up whose idea isn’t as sweet as he thought it would be. The story does show how one man must rebuild his reputation, this is all we need and everything that works in the story, where this story gets even more interesting, comes from the idea that a VR system could be created to do what this one does, XVR, this idea in the story is what will make this standout on new levels, because it does pose the ideas of what people would do with this technology. A story that makes you think, is what sci-fi is truly about, this could also easily be a welcome addition to the Black Mirror world.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi elements in the film do make you feel like you are watching an episode of Black Mirror, it is a concept that turns what seems like a smart idea, that takes a dark turn when the truth comes out, one that makes you think what would you do in this situation.
Settings – The film does keep the settings looking like a start up business, which is all we need, we don’t need to see anything more or anything over the top either, the settings are handled perfectly for the tone of the film.
Special Effects – The effects like the settings, don’t need to be anything more than we get, most are very simple, we don’t need anything fancy for this film though.
Scene of the Movie – The second visit on the machine.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more of a conversation about the moral side of the concept.
Final Thoughts – This is a sci-fi film with a concept that stands out, it will ask the audience a question and will keep you wondering just how far the people will go in the name of science.
Overall: Sci-Fi seriously good.
Performances – Zack Robidas is great in this leading role, he does show us just how his characters life can come crashing down around him, while trying to figure out make up for his mistakes. Outside of Zack, nobody gets that much time to shine, with Kathy Searle and Jay Klaitz doing everything you imagine their characters need to, without being challenged, while Eric Berryman is as smooth as he needs to be throughout the film.
Story – The story here follows an investor that loses his job and needs to rebuild his career, which sees him taking a chance on a new start up whose idea isn’t as sweet as he thought it would be. The story does show how one man must rebuild his reputation, this is all we need and everything that works in the story, where this story gets even more interesting, comes from the idea that a VR system could be created to do what this one does, XVR, this idea in the story is what will make this standout on new levels, because it does pose the ideas of what people would do with this technology. A story that makes you think, is what sci-fi is truly about, this could also easily be a welcome addition to the Black Mirror world.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi elements in the film do make you feel like you are watching an episode of Black Mirror, it is a concept that turns what seems like a smart idea, that takes a dark turn when the truth comes out, one that makes you think what would you do in this situation.
Settings – The film does keep the settings looking like a start up business, which is all we need, we don’t need to see anything more or anything over the top either, the settings are handled perfectly for the tone of the film.
Special Effects – The effects like the settings, don’t need to be anything more than we get, most are very simple, we don’t need anything fancy for this film though.
Scene of the Movie – The second visit on the machine.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more of a conversation about the moral side of the concept.
Final Thoughts – This is a sci-fi film with a concept that stands out, it will ask the audience a question and will keep you wondering just how far the people will go in the name of science.
Overall: Sci-Fi seriously good.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine in Books
Dec 24, 2017
funny (3 more)
heartbreaking
tender
beautiful
Eleanor Oliphant leads a simple, albeit lonely, life. Up in the morning, head to work, and heads down at the office (with a solo break for lunch and the crossword). She spends her evenings and weekends alone--typically with a book, the TV, and a lot vodka. Every Wednesday evening, she speaks on the phone with her mother (Mummy)-- always a painful conversation as her mother is judgemental and exacting. Then one day, Eleanor and Raymond, the slightly oafish IT guy from her office, save the elderly Sammy, who has fallen on the sidewalk. The act turns out to change Eleanor's life--bringing her into Sammy's life and that of his boisterous family--and involving her more with Raymond, as well. Suddenly, it's almost as if Eleanor and Raymond are friends and Eleanor isn't completely lonely anymore. But can her friendship with Raymond erase the sadness in her life?
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.
This book, oh this book. Wow, what a journey. I'm so very glad I finally picked it up. Where do I even begin? First of all, Honeyman captures the voice of Eleanor perfectly. I was honestly a bit surprised when I started this one. I'd been expecting a slightly quirky character (a la the lead in THE ROSIE PROJECT), but there's far more depth and darkness to Eleanor (and her tale) than I imagined. It took me a little longer to get into the story, but once I was: wow. You can visualize Eleanor and her supporting cast so clearly. Raymond comes across effortlessly too. The plot is striking-- an amazing combination of heartbreaking and tender. My heart truly broke for dear Eleanor at times.
I was intrigued by the fact that there's no real huge story, per se, to this novel--it's just Eleanor finding her way in the world. As mentioned, Eleanor and Raymond assist Sammy, and this jolts Eleanor out of her life built around routine and sameness. Forced to come out of her shell, she suddenly sees some things in a new light--her appearance, her job, her friendships (or lack thereof), her apartment, and more. The way Honeyman presents the world--through Eleanor's eyes--is uncanny. I cannot describe how well she captures her diction and how aghast Eleanor is sometimes by the world around her (dirty books from the library, people who waste her time with conversation, the food people eat and how they eat, etc.).
At the same time, you realize how much Eleanor is formed by her childhood, or lack thereof, and it's just... striking. How Honeyman gets this all across in words is amazing. The unexpected darkness and sadness that comes across in the novel and the added layer of suspense she casts as we ponder Eleanor's tragic childhood: it's chilling. The entire book is mesmerizing and beautiful.
That's not to say the book isn't funny or enjoyable, too. Eleanor is her own person, and she's witty and true to her self, for sure. You will find yourself rooting for her personality quirks (of which there are many) and all. If Eleanor's attempts to understand the world don't tug at your heartstrings, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm pretty tough nut to crack when reading, mind you). I was worried that perhaps the moral would be that Eleanor would have to change herself to find happiness, but no, I don't think that was Honeyman's ultimate intent, even if Eleanor does make some "improvements" along the way. (I won't say more for risk of spoilers.) Also, I loved Raymond, as well; his mother; Glen (!!!!); and so many other parts of the story that made me smile. Seriously, even with its sad parts, this book just makes you happy.
Ultimately, this is lovely book, with beautiful, well-written characters. The tale of Eleanor Oliphant will stay with me for a long time, and I'm so glad I finally decided to read this book. Honeyman is an excellent writer, her depiction of Eleanor is gorgeous and heart-rendering and the few flaws I found with this were so minor, as I was left just awed by the end. One of my favorites so far this year.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mass Effect Trilogy in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
An Example Of Why Dialogue Options In Video Games Are More Trouble Than They Are Worth
The first Mass Effect game was released 10 years ago this year and it pioneered many RPG mechanics that are still being used in RPG’s today. Like any pioneer, it spawned many clones that tried to emulate the cover based shooting mechanics that the game used, the romance situations that took place between the characters and the infamous dialogue options that the player could choose from during conversation cutscenes.
Mass Effect wasn’t the first game to do it, there are plenty of earlier examples of the mechanic being used before in games, such as the Fallout series. Bioware actually included the mechanic themselves in their earlier game in Knights Of The Old Republic, but its inclusion Mass Effect is what brought it to the mainstream and soon every developer was wanting a piece of the dialogue tree pie.
I never owned the original Mass Effect, the most exposure I got of it was through a few mates that owned the game at the time, but eventually the mechanic did end up creeping into games that I did own including; Alpha Protocall, Deus Ex, any Telltale game, The Amazing Spiderman 2, (for some reason,) and even in Uncharted 4.
As much as I enjoy a good ‘choose your own adventure,’ story and as much as I appreciate the trust that developers put in gamers to be able to tell their own story; whether that be through dialogue options, moral choices or customization options, I want you to tell me your story. I didn’t pay 50 quid to get given a setting and a bunch of characters to tell my own story. You guys get paid to craft amazingly immersive works of fiction, so do your job and suck me in. Whenever I’m playing a game with dialogue options and I am starting to get invested in the story and the characters, the inevitable dialogue tree pops up and takes me right out of the experience.
Sure, there are some movies that I watch and wonder why a writer or a director made a certain creative choice, but even if I don’t agree with the decision, it is the creator’s job to make those tough choices and that is what makes great art. One of my favorite movies of the last decade is Nicolas Winding Refn’s ‘Drive’ and that is purely because of the creative choices that the cast and crew made on that movie. I know people that hate Drive and I’m sure if given the option they would change it to be a less daring, more cookie cutter action thriller, but that wouldn’t have earned my respect like it has. Sometimes creators need to stop handholding the audience and make a tough call, even if it could potentially be a polarizing one.
In fact, when I think about it, all of my favorite stories are adored so much because of the definitive, drastic calls that they dare to make. I already spoke about Drive, Fight Club’s twist took some balls to pull off, the ambitious non linear storytelling of Pulp Fiction makes it iconic, Breaking Bad was consistently shocking and yet brilliant, MGS is insanely unconventional and I love it for it and The Last Of Us delivers a divisive finishing blow that we have no choice but to partake in.
That is how you tell a great story and that is how you stand out as a creator, by doing something that no one else could do, especially not your audience. When I come home after a long day at work, I don’t want to do much thinking. I want to relax and be told a story by the folks that are best at doing so. Personally, I think that you should believe in the story you are telling enough to make a definitive decision and if you don’t, is it really a story that’s worth telling?
Mass Effect wasn’t the first game to do it, there are plenty of earlier examples of the mechanic being used before in games, such as the Fallout series. Bioware actually included the mechanic themselves in their earlier game in Knights Of The Old Republic, but its inclusion Mass Effect is what brought it to the mainstream and soon every developer was wanting a piece of the dialogue tree pie.
I never owned the original Mass Effect, the most exposure I got of it was through a few mates that owned the game at the time, but eventually the mechanic did end up creeping into games that I did own including; Alpha Protocall, Deus Ex, any Telltale game, The Amazing Spiderman 2, (for some reason,) and even in Uncharted 4.
As much as I enjoy a good ‘choose your own adventure,’ story and as much as I appreciate the trust that developers put in gamers to be able to tell their own story; whether that be through dialogue options, moral choices or customization options, I want you to tell me your story. I didn’t pay 50 quid to get given a setting and a bunch of characters to tell my own story. You guys get paid to craft amazingly immersive works of fiction, so do your job and suck me in. Whenever I’m playing a game with dialogue options and I am starting to get invested in the story and the characters, the inevitable dialogue tree pops up and takes me right out of the experience.
Sure, there are some movies that I watch and wonder why a writer or a director made a certain creative choice, but even if I don’t agree with the decision, it is the creator’s job to make those tough choices and that is what makes great art. One of my favorite movies of the last decade is Nicolas Winding Refn’s ‘Drive’ and that is purely because of the creative choices that the cast and crew made on that movie. I know people that hate Drive and I’m sure if given the option they would change it to be a less daring, more cookie cutter action thriller, but that wouldn’t have earned my respect like it has. Sometimes creators need to stop handholding the audience and make a tough call, even if it could potentially be a polarizing one.
In fact, when I think about it, all of my favorite stories are adored so much because of the definitive, drastic calls that they dare to make. I already spoke about Drive, Fight Club’s twist took some balls to pull off, the ambitious non linear storytelling of Pulp Fiction makes it iconic, Breaking Bad was consistently shocking and yet brilliant, MGS is insanely unconventional and I love it for it and The Last Of Us delivers a divisive finishing blow that we have no choice but to partake in.
That is how you tell a great story and that is how you stand out as a creator, by doing something that no one else could do, especially not your audience. When I come home after a long day at work, I don’t want to do much thinking. I want to relax and be told a story by the folks that are best at doing so. Personally, I think that you should believe in the story you are telling enough to make a definitive decision and if you don’t, is it really a story that’s worth telling?
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
The beginning was inspired...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated All the Ugly and Wonderful Things in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly, I'd like to thank Netgalley and St Martin's Press for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
Full review here too: http://bit.ly/1qZtGhP
<i><b>Right up until that moment it was sweet and funny. Odd couple that they were, they had a real connection. Then he tugged her boot off and kissed the bottom of her bare foot. I could see him doing that kind of thing to his own kid, but she wasnt. She was somebody elses little girl.</i></b>
I am an <b>emotional wreck.</b> How has this book set my moral compass so askew? How could I have possibly been crying over a relationship between a grown man and a minor? I was distraught kinda crying, not a horrified or disgusted kinda crying either! I know Im being a sheep when I say this but <b>wow, this is amazing!</b> I was so worried I'd dislike this book because it was so hyped up but it did not disappoint, not even a little bit.
Youll be amazed at how well Greenwood has reinvented the adult-male-child-female relationship that we see all too often in novels and films. Shes managed to completely turn the disgusting, abusive image on its head. The love between Kellen and Wavy is the truest and realist love I've seen in a book for a seriously long time. There is absolutely <i>no</i> comparison between Kellen and Wavy with Humbert and Lolita, its not that sort of book. There are some people who, undoubtedly, are not going to like this book or the message its putting across, but you have to know that there is nothing evil in this age gap relationship as you would first guess there to be.
I can almost understand why Kellen and Wavy fall in love so quickly and so passionately. Wavy has had such a horrible existence, with her abusive, drug addicted father and her horrible mother who doesnt care for anyone but herself. Wavy is her own person, even from the beginning of this story, she may only be 8 years old but shes already a woman, shes had to live her life looking after herself and her baby brother, she already knows what it is to be an adult, so its no surprise she springs into adulthood at such a full force. And then there is Kellen, hes lonely and undesirable <i>(apparently)</i> and hes also bullied by the people around him he calls friends. So when Wavy comes along and looks at him and treats him like hes the most wonderful person in the world, its not really a surprise that a strong bond grows between them almost instantly.
I believe that at the beginning of their relationship there is no sexual desire, I honestly think their relationship is one of friendship and love in a more uncle and niece kind of way, but soon enough these feelings become something more. Kellen, although he does desire sexual gratification, knows his feelings are misplaced and so there is nothing dark and evil about his feeling towards Wavy, and for me, this makes him one of the best male character Ive read about in a long time, no matter if hes a paedophile or not. He's an incredible man and I absolutely loved him.
This book is a serious roller coaster of emotions and had me blubbering like a baby for the last 10%, or more, of the book. I am in love with this book, so thank you <i>very</i> much Bryn Greenwood for this amazing novel and giving me the chance to read it before publication! Ive already recommended this to friends and family and I cant wait to read more of Greenwoods writing.
<spoiler>I am over the moon with how this ended, I was rooting for their relationship to last throughout the whole thing, as sick as that makes me sound. Thank you Greenwood for the happy ending!</spoiler>
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
Full review here too: http://bit.ly/1qZtGhP
<i><b>Right up until that moment it was sweet and funny. Odd couple that they were, they had a real connection. Then he tugged her boot off and kissed the bottom of her bare foot. I could see him doing that kind of thing to his own kid, but she wasnt. She was somebody elses little girl.</i></b>
I am an <b>emotional wreck.</b> How has this book set my moral compass so askew? How could I have possibly been crying over a relationship between a grown man and a minor? I was distraught kinda crying, not a horrified or disgusted kinda crying either! I know Im being a sheep when I say this but <b>wow, this is amazing!</b> I was so worried I'd dislike this book because it was so hyped up but it did not disappoint, not even a little bit.
Youll be amazed at how well Greenwood has reinvented the adult-male-child-female relationship that we see all too often in novels and films. Shes managed to completely turn the disgusting, abusive image on its head. The love between Kellen and Wavy is the truest and realist love I've seen in a book for a seriously long time. There is absolutely <i>no</i> comparison between Kellen and Wavy with Humbert and Lolita, its not that sort of book. There are some people who, undoubtedly, are not going to like this book or the message its putting across, but you have to know that there is nothing evil in this age gap relationship as you would first guess there to be.
I can almost understand why Kellen and Wavy fall in love so quickly and so passionately. Wavy has had such a horrible existence, with her abusive, drug addicted father and her horrible mother who doesnt care for anyone but herself. Wavy is her own person, even from the beginning of this story, she may only be 8 years old but shes already a woman, shes had to live her life looking after herself and her baby brother, she already knows what it is to be an adult, so its no surprise she springs into adulthood at such a full force. And then there is Kellen, hes lonely and undesirable <i>(apparently)</i> and hes also bullied by the people around him he calls friends. So when Wavy comes along and looks at him and treats him like hes the most wonderful person in the world, its not really a surprise that a strong bond grows between them almost instantly.
I believe that at the beginning of their relationship there is no sexual desire, I honestly think their relationship is one of friendship and love in a more uncle and niece kind of way, but soon enough these feelings become something more. Kellen, although he does desire sexual gratification, knows his feelings are misplaced and so there is nothing dark and evil about his feeling towards Wavy, and for me, this makes him one of the best male character Ive read about in a long time, no matter if hes a paedophile or not. He's an incredible man and I absolutely loved him.
This book is a serious roller coaster of emotions and had me blubbering like a baby for the last 10%, or more, of the book. I am in love with this book, so thank you <i>very</i> much Bryn Greenwood for this amazing novel and giving me the chance to read it before publication! Ive already recommended this to friends and family and I cant wait to read more of Greenwoods writing.
<spoiler>I am over the moon with how this ended, I was rooting for their relationship to last throughout the whole thing, as sick as that makes me sound. Thank you Greenwood for the happy ending!</spoiler>
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.