Search
Search results
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Monster High (Monster High, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I am twenty years old and I loved this book more than I think an intelligent college student should. There were just way to many things that kept me from not turning the pages and walking away. In fact, I have only one negative thing to say about this book.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
This is a book meant strictly for pleasure reading for fantasy and novels alike. While it kept true to the high school novel feel, it also had enough fantasy to make it that much more interesting than just high school girls worrying about losing their boy toys. It was similar to any other young adult novel I have read except for the one factor making it completely different: it revolves around the descendents of monsters. If it wasnt for that, I probably would have hated this book. I have always loved everything to do with fantast monsters and creatures. The fact that Mattel created a doll series about it was cute, but the book made it enjoyable for an audience older than seven years of age.
Quite honestly, I am tired of all the criticism of this book. It is meant to be a light-hearted, moral teaching novel meant for young adults, therefore, it is meant to relatable by teens. All the slang that the students use is how the real world is, people. I am sorry if you dont understand their lingo, but its how kids are, especially high schoolers. They invent words that they think are cool and some tend to catch on. Melodys family is from Beverly Hills. Why wouldnt they have designer clothes? Frankie was born 15 days ago. What else would she wear but what magazines and the media tell her to, which just happens to be designer clothing. As for the celebrity names dropped, this is not in the leagues of Lewis or Tolkien. Few people will read this in 50 years when the current generation doesnt know who Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber is. This was meant for the generation here and now.
This is not a deep novel people. There is no great mission by amazing warriors meant to save the world. The romance is just that: cute teen romance. No sex and no deep involved feeling that are too complicated. If this novel was not grown up for you, then you probably shouldnt be picking up books from the young adult section. Try some Lukyanenko novels and then talk to me. Thanks.
Moving on. The books two main female characters are Melody and Frankie Stein. The description is a bit misleading, however. Frankie and Melody actually dont even really talk to each until the end. Before tragedy strikes, bringing them together, the two are lost in their own little worlds, hardly even concerned with each other. Both girls are focused on making it a new community and high school, while dealing with major crushes and vicious students. Each makes their own friends. Ones are psychotic back-stabbers that need to have cell phone service banned and barred. The others are true and stand behind her even if they dont agree with her.
The characters were adorable, crazy, funny, and had so much well character. It was easy to tell one from another and I absolutely loved reading about them interacting with each other. Most of the novel had me either laughing, or setting the book aside until I could get over my empathetic embarrassment. I found myself sympathizing with all the characters points of view even though none of them know the whole picture like the reader does. Not to mention, sharing Frankies frustration. I was with her 100% even though I kept telling myself her parents way was the safest. How could you not feel frustrated when everyone was telling her to have pride in what she was and the forcing who to hide what she was? Hypocritical much? I thought so.
Now to the only negative thing I have to say about this book: I wanted to continuously shut Melody down. I found it down right annoying that she thought she knew how Jackson (Dr. Jekylls grandson) and Frankie (Frankensteins granddaughter) felt about being outcasts just because she had a nose she considered ugly. Are you kidding me? Really? I thought this was a poor attempt by Harrison to give Melody and Frankie some common ground. Being made fun of because of your nose is nowhere near the devastation of being hunted down because your grandfather was a chemical addict or a stitched together living doll. Oh, I am sure that it was tragic enough for Melody, but how dare she say she understood what it was like. Melody was never in mortal danger for her difference, so please, honey, get off your self-righteous horse.
The main reason I loved this book so much was because it was so distracting. It was such a light and fluffy book about the simplicity that is high school life. It was refreshing from all these novels nowadays where the protagonist is the only person capable of saving the world, their loved, blah blah blah, while the protagonist is some immensely powerful being. Note to writers: that scenario is getting old real quick.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Jamie Towell Cook (13 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Resident Evil 2 (Remake) in Video Games
Apr 6, 2020
September 29th 1998
Raccoon City, home to the worlds leading pharmaceutical company, the Umbrella Corporation. This is the day that the city and its inhabitants would never forget.
It's been 21 years since the original release of the second installment of the Resident Evil franchise and I can honestly say time (and Capcom) have been incredibly kind to this game. Using the new RE engine that we saw in Resident Evil 7, this remake of what was already a legend of a game, gets a complete modern makeover. Now it's not just the graphics that have been pushed into the modern era: Capcom are a company who grows and learns and they have obviously listened to a lot of fan feedback. The controls are very similar to early installments of the game such as RE4, RE5 and RE6, giving you the over the shoulder perspective and the ability to aim freely, unlike RE5 and 6 though they have managed to amp up the scare tactics, taking Resident evil all they way back to its roots of being a survival horror game and not an action game (*cough, cough* RE4, 5 & 6).
The game story, if you don't already know, or are just too young to have been around for its original release, centres on two characters who by chance both meet at a gas station on that fateful night just outside the city limits. There is the rookie cop, Leon S. Kennedy, who, unluckily for him has decided to enroll into the RPD (Raccoon Police Department) or you can choose College student, motorcyclist and all round badass Claire Redfield, who has gone to Raccon City to find her brother, Chris. Who fans are bound to know if they have played basically any of the other titles out there.
Soon after Leon and Claire arrive this gas station (separately), both soon realize that there is something very strange happening. Upon investigating, they soon find out what that is.
Yep, zombies!
Now any normal people out there at this point would be running as far away as possible leaving a trail of wee behind them as they did so, that is if you aren't eaten first. However Leon and Claire hop in a car a decide heading into the city is the best course of action (SERIOUSLY??) Anyways, that's how the story sets its pace and trust me when I say, wear clean underwear when you start this game and maybe change them a few times because Capcom have learnt how to use those scare tactics quite effectively now. So fasten your seat belts, kids, it's going to be a bumpy night!
The story remains essentially the same as the original from 1998: things have been moved around slightly and some cut scenes extended but it does stay true to the masterpiece that it was for its day and age. Obviously now though, the graphics are just a beauty to behold; both Claire and Leon look amazing in their HD splendour, and the police station entrance, which has got to be the most iconic moment of the game, will take your breath away.
Although why Raccoon City has the world's most fancy police station is beyond me...
Not only have our protagonists and surroundings had the HD makeover but so have all the enemies too. Zombies, zombie dogs (Why just dogs though) and other abominable creatures that are lurking in the shadows also look truly amazing as well.
Now back in the day when Resident Evil 2 first came out it was spread out over two discs. One disc solely focused on Leon's series of events and the other on Claire's. The game's story was split into two different versions: you had Scenario A and Scenario B. Basically if you played A as either character then B would be what the other character was doing at that same time. The remake follows the same principle, allowing you to play through two different sequences of events. Completing all scenarios will give you access to the true ending and the fourth survivor mini story. The fourth survivor follows the story of an Umbrella secret service agent known as HUNK. The fourth survivors tale begins in the sewers of the forsaken city and is essentially a mini mission to escape to an extraction point and flee the city.
In addition to the main game and fourth survivor mode, there is also another mode called Ghost Survivors. Ghost survivors tells the story of different characters that are encountered in one way or another throughout the main games story and is a `what if` telling of events from their perspectives. The game play itself follows the same principles as fourth survivor mode in that timed, get from point A to point B kind of style. By playing through these modes you can unlock some extremely random accessories to make the modes more interesting.
For me, Resident Evil 2 was one of the first survival horror games i had ever played back on the PS1. I have some very fond memories of playing this game and of teaching my little brother how to play this game as well. I had my doubts when a remake was announced but i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that this remake is a work of art. Doing more than justice to its original and even surpassing it.
This is a title that should most definatley be in any gamers arsenal.
Raccoon City, home to the worlds leading pharmaceutical company, the Umbrella Corporation. This is the day that the city and its inhabitants would never forget.
It's been 21 years since the original release of the second installment of the Resident Evil franchise and I can honestly say time (and Capcom) have been incredibly kind to this game. Using the new RE engine that we saw in Resident Evil 7, this remake of what was already a legend of a game, gets a complete modern makeover. Now it's not just the graphics that have been pushed into the modern era: Capcom are a company who grows and learns and they have obviously listened to a lot of fan feedback. The controls are very similar to early installments of the game such as RE4, RE5 and RE6, giving you the over the shoulder perspective and the ability to aim freely, unlike RE5 and 6 though they have managed to amp up the scare tactics, taking Resident evil all they way back to its roots of being a survival horror game and not an action game (*cough, cough* RE4, 5 & 6).
The game story, if you don't already know, or are just too young to have been around for its original release, centres on two characters who by chance both meet at a gas station on that fateful night just outside the city limits. There is the rookie cop, Leon S. Kennedy, who, unluckily for him has decided to enroll into the RPD (Raccoon Police Department) or you can choose College student, motorcyclist and all round badass Claire Redfield, who has gone to Raccon City to find her brother, Chris. Who fans are bound to know if they have played basically any of the other titles out there.
Soon after Leon and Claire arrive this gas station (separately), both soon realize that there is something very strange happening. Upon investigating, they soon find out what that is.
Yep, zombies!
Now any normal people out there at this point would be running as far away as possible leaving a trail of wee behind them as they did so, that is if you aren't eaten first. However Leon and Claire hop in a car a decide heading into the city is the best course of action (SERIOUSLY??) Anyways, that's how the story sets its pace and trust me when I say, wear clean underwear when you start this game and maybe change them a few times because Capcom have learnt how to use those scare tactics quite effectively now. So fasten your seat belts, kids, it's going to be a bumpy night!
The story remains essentially the same as the original from 1998: things have been moved around slightly and some cut scenes extended but it does stay true to the masterpiece that it was for its day and age. Obviously now though, the graphics are just a beauty to behold; both Claire and Leon look amazing in their HD splendour, and the police station entrance, which has got to be the most iconic moment of the game, will take your breath away.
Although why Raccoon City has the world's most fancy police station is beyond me...
Not only have our protagonists and surroundings had the HD makeover but so have all the enemies too. Zombies, zombie dogs (Why just dogs though) and other abominable creatures that are lurking in the shadows also look truly amazing as well.
Now back in the day when Resident Evil 2 first came out it was spread out over two discs. One disc solely focused on Leon's series of events and the other on Claire's. The game's story was split into two different versions: you had Scenario A and Scenario B. Basically if you played A as either character then B would be what the other character was doing at that same time. The remake follows the same principle, allowing you to play through two different sequences of events. Completing all scenarios will give you access to the true ending and the fourth survivor mini story. The fourth survivor follows the story of an Umbrella secret service agent known as HUNK. The fourth survivors tale begins in the sewers of the forsaken city and is essentially a mini mission to escape to an extraction point and flee the city.
In addition to the main game and fourth survivor mode, there is also another mode called Ghost Survivors. Ghost survivors tells the story of different characters that are encountered in one way or another throughout the main games story and is a `what if` telling of events from their perspectives. The game play itself follows the same principles as fourth survivor mode in that timed, get from point A to point B kind of style. By playing through these modes you can unlock some extremely random accessories to make the modes more interesting.
For me, Resident Evil 2 was one of the first survival horror games i had ever played back on the PS1. I have some very fond memories of playing this game and of teaching my little brother how to play this game as well. I had my doubts when a remake was announced but i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that this remake is a work of art. Doing more than justice to its original and even surpassing it.
This is a title that should most definatley be in any gamers arsenal.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Berserk Excursion Down Uncanny Valley.
“I see you”. James Cameron‘s fingerprints are all over this one, as producer ahead of his threatened (and with this movie-goer, entirely unwanted) Avatar sequels. Alita is a huge great smelly CGI mess of a film, but quite fun with it.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hamsters vs. Hippos in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2021
Deeply consider this question: what is your natural predator? We are the top of the food chain, right? Right? And what we all learned in school is that some animals are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores. At least in the Midwest, that’s what we were taught. Now, I don’t remember ever being taught that hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) eat anything other than grass. However, I have been wrong so many times in my life that I am interested to find out why they would snack on fleeing hamsters. Perhaps a board game can help me!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is a press-your-luck tile flipping game where players are cute little hamsterinos escaping the zoo and nearing freedom. However, along the way they must traverse the hippo enclosure. Typically hippos only eat grass, but in this game universe they are attracted to the delectable little rodents and are as hangry as my kids after a day at the playground. The hamster who can collect the most lotus flowers from the hippo lily pads at the end of the game will be the winner and be able to escape the zoo in peace. All other players will be snacked.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, determine the appropriate grid size for the number of players per the rulebook. Shuffle all the lily pad tiles face-down, place them in the grid, then place upon them nine lotus flower tokens. Each player will select their hamsteeple and mat and the game may now begin!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is played over four rounds and each turn players will have two actions they must complete. For the first action, each hamster must move onto the grid to explore a face-down tile, or explore another face-down tile if already on the grid. For the second action the hamster may continue exploring new tiles or be taken off the grid to score their collected lotus flowers. Movement can be orthogonally or diagonally, but every time they move, the hamsters must move to an unexplored tile. Flipping these tiles will reveal empty lily pads, some special actions to be taken, lotus flowers to be collected, or hippos that end the hamster’s round and makes the hamster forfeit their collected lotus flowers this round.
The game continues in this fashion over four rounds where hamsters are moving onto and off the grid, moving around the grid, collecting flowers, and possibly being eaten. At the end of the fourth round players total their lotus flowers they were able to keep and the hamster with the most lotus flowers wins!
Components. This one is easy. This game is a bunch of lily pad tiles, some cardstock player mats, wooden lotus flower tokens, and cute little hamsteeples. The tiles are good quality, the player mats are big and nice, and the hamsteeples are precious. I enjoy the lighthearted art style quite a bit – even the angry-looking hippo tiles. My only issue lies with the lotus flower tokens. They are very thin painted wooden tokens in two colors – pastel pink (worth 1 VP)and slightly darker pastel purple (worth 3 VP). I am not colorblind, but I like to make mention of items I would think are not colorblind friendly. The difference in color is not great enough, even for me of acceptable color differentiation. Another thing about these is they are very thin and delicate. Normally this isn’t an issue for me, but this is clearly a game my children want to play. When they play this with me I am always holding my breath just waiting for them to break a lotus flower. It hasn’t happened yet, but I might see about adding sturdier components to my copy when I play with little ones.
Game play is very very light. This is purely a press-your-luck game of deciding to move to a tile, flipping it over, and hoping for the best. There are a few special action tiles that can help mitigate the luck factor a little, but most of the time it’s a leap before you look scenario. That may turn off a large faction of gamers, but I will be playing this primarily with my children (who are nowhere near the suggested age of 8+). I could have reviewed this under our Kids Table series, but it doesn’t seem to be marketed specifically to children. As a game for adults, this is novelty at best, but for children it’s a decent press-your-luck style game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6, but only because it works so well with kids. If I didn’t have children I couldn’t see myself playing it a whole lot at all. Consider this when you look at the amazing cover art and intriguing theme. It’s good for what it is, but will not be for all collections and play groups.
Hamsters vs. Hippos is a press-your-luck tile flipping game where players are cute little hamsterinos escaping the zoo and nearing freedom. However, along the way they must traverse the hippo enclosure. Typically hippos only eat grass, but in this game universe they are attracted to the delectable little rodents and are as hangry as my kids after a day at the playground. The hamster who can collect the most lotus flowers from the hippo lily pads at the end of the game will be the winner and be able to escape the zoo in peace. All other players will be snacked.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, determine the appropriate grid size for the number of players per the rulebook. Shuffle all the lily pad tiles face-down, place them in the grid, then place upon them nine lotus flower tokens. Each player will select their hamsteeple and mat and the game may now begin!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is played over four rounds and each turn players will have two actions they must complete. For the first action, each hamster must move onto the grid to explore a face-down tile, or explore another face-down tile if already on the grid. For the second action the hamster may continue exploring new tiles or be taken off the grid to score their collected lotus flowers. Movement can be orthogonally or diagonally, but every time they move, the hamsters must move to an unexplored tile. Flipping these tiles will reveal empty lily pads, some special actions to be taken, lotus flowers to be collected, or hippos that end the hamster’s round and makes the hamster forfeit their collected lotus flowers this round.
The game continues in this fashion over four rounds where hamsters are moving onto and off the grid, moving around the grid, collecting flowers, and possibly being eaten. At the end of the fourth round players total their lotus flowers they were able to keep and the hamster with the most lotus flowers wins!
Components. This one is easy. This game is a bunch of lily pad tiles, some cardstock player mats, wooden lotus flower tokens, and cute little hamsteeples. The tiles are good quality, the player mats are big and nice, and the hamsteeples are precious. I enjoy the lighthearted art style quite a bit – even the angry-looking hippo tiles. My only issue lies with the lotus flower tokens. They are very thin painted wooden tokens in two colors – pastel pink (worth 1 VP)and slightly darker pastel purple (worth 3 VP). I am not colorblind, but I like to make mention of items I would think are not colorblind friendly. The difference in color is not great enough, even for me of acceptable color differentiation. Another thing about these is they are very thin and delicate. Normally this isn’t an issue for me, but this is clearly a game my children want to play. When they play this with me I am always holding my breath just waiting for them to break a lotus flower. It hasn’t happened yet, but I might see about adding sturdier components to my copy when I play with little ones.
Game play is very very light. This is purely a press-your-luck game of deciding to move to a tile, flipping it over, and hoping for the best. There are a few special action tiles that can help mitigate the luck factor a little, but most of the time it’s a leap before you look scenario. That may turn off a large faction of gamers, but I will be playing this primarily with my children (who are nowhere near the suggested age of 8+). I could have reviewed this under our Kids Table series, but it doesn’t seem to be marketed specifically to children. As a game for adults, this is novelty at best, but for children it’s a decent press-your-luck style game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6, but only because it works so well with kids. If I didn’t have children I couldn’t see myself playing it a whole lot at all. Consider this when you look at the amazing cover art and intriguing theme. It’s good for what it is, but will not be for all collections and play groups.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017 (Updated Dec 21, 2017)
Excellent performances (2 more)
Standout awesome moments
SFX
Huge plot holes (1 more)
Wasted potential
Not Your Grandpa's Star Wars
Contains spoilers, click to show
DISCLAIMER: This review will contain spoilers from the start and throughout. If you haven't seen the movie yet, then go read someone else's review and come back to mine once you have seen it.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.